Originally Posted by Tim Hallas
Originally Posted by Parture
If the Bible says it and I sense it by the Holy Spirit and the body of Christ agrees then it must be true.
Do you think the "Holy Spirit", would have given you this sensing of these exact things, if you had never read or were told about these words in this Book? I have always been curious about why you never hear of this particular god, planting thoughts into non-Christian peoples minds that match, in any way, the words in the bible. Isn't that a curious thing? It seems to me that all revelations of biblical knowledge, come only to people who know it's contents first. Would you care to explain that to us non-Christians.
When I came to Christ I never read the Bible, nor did I own a Bible. That's interesting. It was only after I was born-again that I began to read God's word.
God is love and indwells His loved ones, not those who do not love Him. That's not to say the Holy Spirit can't work upon other people, for He certainly does (called prevenient grace, and common grace Rom. 1.20). But the intimate relationship of having His uncreated life in us is to grow in Him and walk in His ways, eventually reaching a state of complete selflessness and sinlessness. Satan works from outer to inner, but God works from inner to outer. So be careful of "so-called" planting thoughts into the mind of our outerman they are not always of God. Non-Christians receive God's suggestions that draws them to Christ. He will use environment and all kinds of means. His ways are greater than our ways.
The Holy Spirit is always working even in those who are not saved, but the Holy Spirit doesn't indwell the spirit (innerman) of a person unless they are born-again. This is seen in the Temple. The outer court represents our body. It is where Jesus died on the altar. The Holy Place with its utensils represent the functions of our soul (mind, will and emotion). Within the Holy Place is the Holy of Holies which represents your spirit. Nobody was allowed enter except the High Priest once a year.
When Jesus died on the cross the veil was rent between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. From that point on those that were saved or born-again can directly commune with God by having access to the Holy of Holies where the Holy Spirit comes down upon the mercy seat and indwells the spirit of a believer. Inside the Holy of Holies is the law in the ark which judges according to God's will in our conscience. The blood is sprinkled upon
This will be interesting to see if anyone answers this thread.
Let's say you know someone who claims to believe in Jesus but never gives the gospel of salvation to anyone, not even in the slightest. There is no compassion or empathy or concern by them for others who are perishing. They never go to Church. It's as if Jesus does not exist even though they claim to believe in Him when challenged. If everyone who was saved was like this there would be no Church.
It's as if they know what we want to hear from them to believe in Jesus. But they are not willing to go so far as to say people who reject Christ are going to Hell even though Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone and the gospel of salvation is clear if you don't accept Christ you will go to Hell. That's the gospel, or at least part of the gospel.
They have never read the Bible. So they could care less Jesus said, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish [not go to Hell], but have everlasting life" (John 3.16).
On top of that, prior to you yourself being saved, that fake Christian never brought up Christ even once. And even today they still don't. You would have to start the discussion always. You may have known them for decades. They may have accused you of being a "fanatic" when you first gave your life to Christ. How in the world is that accepting a new member of the body of Christ? Now all of a sudden years after you were saved they claim they themselves were saved all along. Then why did they never bring Christ up? I have never known such evil before!
This same person also lashes out or gets angry every time you call them out for not being a Christian because they don't accept the Jesus who sends people to Hell, particularly family members and close relatives who reject Christ. Does that not strike you as a self-centered faith? All things center on them, because by virtue of them claiming to be saved everyone in their sphere of influence is saved, but outside that sphere others are not necessarily saved. Total lunacy!
I am sure there is a better name for it, but I call this Fake Pseudo-Universalism Christianity because everyone is saved in their sphere of influence even if there are those in the sphere who reject Christ or call themselves atheists, agnostic, deist or adamantly state they don't believe in religion. I always thought
Early Creedal Texts by Gary R. Habermas
The New Testament contains dozens of very early texts that actually pre-date the epistles in which they were recorded. They may basically be thought of as the answer to the exciting question, “Of what did the very earliest apostolic and other preaching look like before even a single New Testament book was ever written?” The earliest forms of these texts were oral, where they usually served the purpose of briefly summarizing the essentials of Christianity (usually the factual essence of the Gospel data) including the deity of Jesus Christ, and could easily be memorized, even by those who were illiterate.
Amazingly, scholars generally agree on the location of these traditions or creeds. These texts are recognized in many ways, but one of the clearest is when the New Testament writer explicitly tells us that he is repeating an early teaching, passing on a tradition, and so on. The chief examples include 1 Cor. 11:23-26; 15:3; 2 Thes. 2:15; 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 3:8; Heb. 2:2-3. Others are identified by linguistic, syntactical, cadence, and other textual hints, and often concern the subject of Jesus occupying his heavenly place on the right side of God’s throne. Major examples include those in Rom. 1:3-4; 4:25; 5:8; 10:9; 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:6-11, and Heb. 1:3. Cf. many others such as Eph. 1:20; Col. 1:15-20; 3:1; 1 Tim. 2:5-6; 3:16; Heb. 1:1; 1:13; 8:1; 12:2; 1 Pet. 1:21; 2:21; 3:18; 3:22.
While a bit different, it is widely agreed that there are also a number of brief sermon summaries within the Book of Acts which, like the other creedal materials, are much older than the book in which they appear. The most-commonly mentioned candidates for these sermon segments are in Acts 1:21-22; 2:22-36; 3:13-16; 4:8-10; 5:29-32; 10:39-43; 13:28-31; 17:1-3; 17:30-31. Those speaking of Jesus’ deity include Acts 2:33, 36; 5:31.
Among other crucial topics, these early creeds often applied the loftiest titles of deity to Jesus Christ. Like Acts 2:36; Rom. 1:3-4; 10:9; 1 Cor. 8:6; 11:23; and Phil. 2:6-11. Intriguingly, this entire subject arose from studies by critical New Testament scholars rather than from evangelicals. This is one of those rare subjects where older studies are often seen as the most authoritative ones, such as what is often proclaimed as the classic work: Oscar Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, trans. by J.K.S. Reid (London: Lutterworth,
I am a Christian. I was born-again as in John 3.7,16 Jan. 2001 and given eternal life right at that moment (John 3.15, 17.3). I can never lose salvation (John 10.28), and I go to the highest heaven of which there is only one heaven anyhow which is the New City in the New Earth (Rev. 21) where heaven and earth come together.
The only new earth that fits this description is Mars for various many reasons as the old earth is left without the sea, but the new earth will also be without the sea as disclosed in Scripture (Rev. 21.1). And John viewed the New City from a great high mountain, mount Olympus, the largest mountain in the solar system. Hugh Ross, a scientist, has come up with over 800 variables for life to exist on another planet, but there are only 10^24 planets in the universe, so it is impossible for life to exist on another planet. Mars would have to be greatly terraformed for humans to live on it. Also, if 1% of the population goes to the highest heaven in Mormonism, there, again, are not enough planets in the universe. This is an easy enough mathematical calculation, and it holds true whether you start from Adam 4004 BC or from 1830 in Joseph Smith's time.
Paul said "But I wish everyone were single, just as I am. Yet each person has a special gift from God, of one kind or another." (1 Cor. 7.7) "For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven" (Matt. 22.30). I don't see any couples in heaven when people die. I don't see, thus, billions of spirit babies.
I find these verses disagree with Mormonism greatly. The word of God is pure and unchangeable. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24.35, Mark 13.31, Luke 21.33). That being the case, the 66 books of the Bible have not been corrupted and remain perfectly preserved. So anything that contradicts it would not be true.
I believe in the Trinity. One way to understand this without using Scripture is to provide an analogy since Mormons will often say the Bible is true but only to the extent that Joseph Smith says it is true; then no verse can be relied upon to help Mormons according to Mormons since they will just change it on the fly if they are corned. There is no cornerstone of truth.
So imagine if you will a piece of paper. And on this piece of paper is a stick figure with
Prayer and Warfare
The Spiritual Man, Vol. 2, Part 4 THE SPIRIT, Ch. 4, by Watchman Nee
ALL PRAYER OUGHT TO BE SPIRITUAL. Unspiritual prayers are not genuine and can produce no positive result. What abundant spiritual success there would be were every prayer offered by believers on earth in fact spiritual! But sad to say, fleshly prayers are far too numerous. Self-will found therein deprives them of spiritual fruitfulness. Nowadays Christians appear to treat prayer as a means to accomplish their aims and ideas. If they possessed just a little deeper understanding, they would recognize that prayer is but man uttering to God what is Godís will. The flesh, no matter where displayed, must be crucified; it is not permitted even in prayer. No mixing of manís will in Godís work is possible, for He rejects the best of human intentions and manís most profitable prospects. God does not will He should follow what man has initiated. Other than following Godís direction, we have no right to direct Him. We have no ability to offer save to obey Godís guidance. God will do no work which originates with man, no matter how much man may pray. He condemns such praying as fleshly.
As believers enter the true realm of the spirit, immediately they shall see how empty they themselves are, for absolutely nothing in them can impart life to others or work havoc upon the enemy. Instinctively they will therefore reckon on God. Prayer then becomes imperative. True prayer uncovers the emptiness in the petitioner but the fullness in the Petitioned. Unless the flesh has been reduced to a ďvacuumĒ by the cross, what use is prayer and what can it possibly signify?
Spiritual prayer does not proceed from the flesh nor the thought, desire, or decision of the believer; rather does it follow purely from that which is offered according to the will of God. It is prayed in the spirit, that is to say, spiritual prayer is made after one has discerned the will of God in his intuition. The command insisted upon in the Bible is to ďpray at all times in the spiritĒ (Eph. 6.18). If that is not the way we are praying we must be praying in the flesh. We should not open our mouths too hastily upon approaching God. On the contrary, we first must ask God to show us what and how to pray before we make our request known to Him. Have we not consumed a great deal of time in the past asking for what we wanted? Why not now ask for what God wants? Not what we want
The Reformation was justification by faith not irresistibly imposed salvation so you can see how Calvinists high jacked the word "reformed" for their cult.
There were no great theologians who were Calvinists. Calvinists are going to Hell.
None of those individuals you mentioned were born-again. They were frauds. In Christendom are many who worship false Christs.
What they all had in common is they pridefully on a pedestal declared they were irresistibly selected, nothing they could do about it, and others sent to Hell given no opportunity for salvation. That's called preterition. Just like Hitler said the Jews were born for the gas chambers and his Aryan race irresistibly selected just like you.
These characters you mentioned simply refused to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated. Understand the cult you are getting yourself into.
God implores you "that the wicked person should turn from his way and live. Repent, repent of your evil ways!" (Ez. 33.11) Is God some sadistic bastard that says you can't? Hence, Total depravity is a heresy.
My prayer is one day give your life to Christ, because as you are now, you are going to Hell.
There are no contemporary sources for Jesus outside of the gospels. How necessary is it for history to be written during their lifetime? If history is written after Jesus' life does that mean we have to reject it as untrustworthy? Was the NT written intentionally to make it appear as though Jesus rose for the dead? Does a person's biography have to be written while they are alive?
Not even in the modern world let alone in the first century. In the first century, just prior or after, most of the major works were not written contemporary of a person. Earliest sources for Alexander were written 350 years after his death. The two best known sources for Alexander (Plutarch and Arian) are +425 to +450. John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman when they are responding to whether we know if Jesus is a historical figure, both of them say Josephus and Tacitus are probably our very best non-Christian sources. Bart Ehrman lists a dozen independent sources for the crucifixion of Jesus. 4 of them are non-New Testament, two of them are historians. Josephus is approximately 60 years after Jesus died. And Tacitus is as much as 80 years after the cross. Two critical sources consider these fine sources. Crossan says these two sources alone would cause me to think Jesus really lived and those holding the Jesus myth are wrong. They don't have an issue with 60 or 80 years after Jesus.
Does it pose a problem if the 4 gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
Not in the slightest. Whomever they were written by and the input given to them by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is not important. What is important is they are our earliest sources within a decade after Jesus died on the cross. Historians highly value earliest sources. Even if you place these sources in the second half of the first century, they still make up sources that are closer to their events than for any writings in antiquity, thus, holding to the highest of standards.
Early creedal texts such as in 1 Cor. 15 that take us back to what Christians reported in the early 30s AD makes so much sense compared to what Tacitus may have said.