EvC Forum: The Gospel, Christians and Acts

Bailey writes:

Thanks for your time iano.

I have all eternity..

We heard our Hope for the Good News is found within Christs' Resurrection? According to even Paul, faith or an imagination of Jesus' belief in 'hell' is in no way required for Forgiveness, Resurrection, or Survival ...

If you declare with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that the Father raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

If possible, please provide a chapter and verse where the Anchor expresses ones Hope of Survival and Resurrection lay in maintaining a healthy fear of death & torment; we were unable to locate it - lol.

I'm not suggesting that a belief in Hell is required in order that one be saved. I'm not even suggesting that belief in Christ's resurrection is required in order that a person be saved (such a belief arising, I suggest, after one is saved).

It is indeed true to say that if you are in a state of belief regarding Jesus' Lordship you will be saved. Such a belief (like good works) is a marker of a saved one. A consequence of having been saved. I hold.

Given the Holy Spirits task of convincing the world of sin, righteousness and judgement (which, I gather, sums up the essence of what a person need believe in order that they be saved) I think it reasonable to include hell in one's gospel.

..an opportunity to join hellfire was not Jesus' Good News.

One can gleam much more 'hell' literature from religious entities, than they can from the Faithful and True Witness.

Indeed it wasn't. The possibility of avoiding Hell fire was what made the news good however. Stripped of the bad news there is nothing good to say about the good news.

That some over-emphasize Hell and place it central, doesn't alter the fact that judgement and punishment are central to Jesus' teaching.

For the longest time, the way to understand christianity was to read the scripture and to digest its Wisdom. As it did then, it still requires hard work, diligence, a mature faith, an intelligent mind, strong reading abilities, and a willingness to learn about a culture from a different time and place. On top of all that, one needs an extraordinary imagination. We feel this type faith is to be admired, revered, and loved because it shows a true and pure faith that genuinely desires to know the Father of Life.

Agreed. Only to remark that scripture is but one way to understand Christianity.

Culture, if that is its real name, appears to have promoted the complete opposite of diligence in many aspects of our lives. It is not news, we are sure, when we identify the trend of many cultures that are enthralled with instant gratification as seen in movies, the internet, television, fast food, video games, and music, while other activities that require time and work are neglected, such as reading, playing sports, and spending time with family. lol - granted, this is stark contrast to fighting to the death, throwing people to lions, public executions and all sorts of less civilized activities that were previously used to 'pass the time' (whatever that means).

Although inclined to agree, I'd have to defer to the book of Ecclesiastes and suppose that there is nothing new under the sun and that mankind and the issues driving a wedge between him and his creator, in essence, don't alter. The false gods of this age might be different to the age that went before but false gods there has and always will be.

Where sin abounds, doth grace abound even more..

Systematic theology, for instance, does not require an in-depth reading of scripture itself. The very nature of systematic theology is that of a quick-and-dirty view of passages that mention various issues, such as eschatology or baptism, etc. Instead of reading the bible as a historical narrative in the way that it was presented to us in its canonized form, this new systematic way of thinking slices the bible into neat and tidy sections separated by topic. Although when trying to understand a particular issue, one is well served by searching through the scripture to understand what was said about that issue, this new theological perspective does not look at the whole bible as a continuous story that builds upon itself. By doing so, it ignores many valid concepts, while inventing more of its own.

Again I would agree with your point and there are grounds to decry the inappropriate use of and emphasis on systematics - it being the spiritual aspect ignored I'd lament.

It cannot be ignored however, that the Bible, like it's author, is systematic. I see no harm in examining the componant parts systematically so long as ones aim is to get a better grasp of the whole.

[qs]lol - we have no faith in the success of death/debbil and 'hell'; All our Faith is assigned to Christs' Kingdom of Servants, Resurrection, and Everliving Life.[qs] You mean you see no place for mentioning Hell in evangelism? We might just have to agree to disagree on that one. If Jesus found fit to weave talk of judgement and hell through his teaching (and I can see the sense in him doing so) I'm not inclined to ignore that fact.

We are exceedingly thankful for Paul's intricate testimonies; please do not think otherwise.

Did anyone ever tell you that you have a way with words

Thankfully though, faith without works is dead; perhaps the heterodox view that faith alone 'saves' is encouraging religious folk to usher in the emergent laodicean era.

This is how God's children and the devil's children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God.

We will ask you more simply; do you feel it would be found more pleasing to learn how to love the Father conditionally or unconditionally?

Is it better to teach conditional faith or unconditional faith?

Given God working in the believer so that he wills and acts according to Gods good pleasure, I cannot help but suppose works a derivative of faith. Certainly that has been my experience also.

It follows that works of righteousness will be the distinguishing feature of the saved - as you say.

As to loving God? It would be found most pleasing for both him and us were the love 'issued' by either party unconditional. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by conditional/unconditional faith - could you rephrase this?

lol - it remains, physically, most fished or crunched numbers while Paul murdered people. People that were completely honest and utterly subservient to their Father, Savior, brothers, neighbors and widows.

Granted. And the point you'd build out of that fact..

The basic premise is that new believers and those open and unaware of the Way do not need to be fed poison in the beginning of their Faith. If one has trouble forgiving themselves or imaging the Father of Life's pardon, Paul's testimony may lend tremendous understanding to Forgiveness' depth and variety.

There is something unavoidable about the principle that truth sets free. One truth (we might agree for the sake of argument) is that the unsaved will perish in hell. There being only two states a person can be in: saved/unsaved, this truth (not poison) is easy to investigate wrt it's freeing effect on either party.

- for the unsaved, talk of hell reinforces of a sense of judgment that satans lies / the sinful nature will be seeking to suppress. That the person doesn't believe in God or Hell is irrelevant to the fact of their hearing truth. As CS Lewis said: the path to hell consists of gentle slopes, no sudden turns, no signposting. Talk of Hell might not be comfortable, it might be something hated (and oh! how talk of hell is hated), it might be a stone in the shoe during a persons walk towards hell. But that is precisely what the power of the gospel does. It is meant to disturb. The comfort can come later.

- for the new believer? Assuming talk of Hell is scripturally sound and balanced correctly into the scheme of things, the new believer is not going to hear anything that he won't be reading in the Bible. Indeed, hearing baldly that Hell is for the unsaved and that he, if saved is never going there might assist in reducing the fright that might arise from a cursory glance at scripture.

Yet, none are convicted, unless we adopt the faith in 'the debbil' and his religious tribes who Lie about the truth. Christ came so that ALL may have Life; John assures us the Man of Hope will advocate if we slip (partake in an act of malignant aggression).

It has been written, your sins are forgiven through Him that Loved the Father of Life the most.

Is our hope of Forgiveness established by a guilty conviction or Jesus Resurrection?

As I say, the goal is not to have someone believe in Hell. Nor is it that someone have faith in Christ. The goal is to deliver truth on the assumption that it leads to freedom. Faith as I say, is subsequent to salvation.

We are not sure which you mean; the conclusion that Paul felt guilty or that many are brainwashed into accepting defunct version's of Paul's testimony, without personally studying it?

I was responding to this suggestiong:

Paul, the murderer, appears to have had a very guilty conscience

If anyone understood that a believer has no right to feel guilty it would have been Paul. Guilt involves beating yourself up for your sin. It involves self-condemnation. It involves a certain amount of wallowing. None of which the believer is permitted to do - given that Christ is the one who has taken the beating on your behalf.

Paul held Christ in too high a regard to dishonour him by wallowing in guilt. His recognition of his sin within and his mourning over it - need not have guilt attached.

There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ - Paul.

Either way, we think the bible is best read with ones own eyes (preferably open).

The less we learn from 'teachers', the better. The Father of Life has employed a Spirit of Love for that purpose.

How does this view tie in with teaching being one of the spiritual gift?

Yep - hopefully you do not have faith the Prophet is referring to 'hell'! More of the same inconsistency; there is no 'darkness' within fire - lol. It is not a happy place, with the clenched jaws and tears, but it does not align well at all with 'eternal fire'. 'Great wailing' and 'gnashing of teeth' will certainly occur when Reality is finally declared. We have imagined this scenario; it appears more like a dim funeral parlor than a demon bonfire.

I would indeed be of the opinion that the Christ is referring to eternal punishment. The various images used to convey a sense of the environment there need not be literally taken. I for one don't imagine the fires of hell having to do with elevated temperatures.

Bailey previously writes:

In Acts, the disciples report the Father's Good News for All and many appear to receive the Words that are spoken properly. In Romans, Paul reports bad news; his difficulty in accepting what the Father, the Son, and the Spirit of Agape Love have prepared for All.

The fact of worldwide Christianity (however wobbley-wheeled) arises largely out of Pauls missionary journeys. Adequate demonstration of a working gospel format. I must wonder about the cleaving to the briefest of accounts in Acts whilst setting aside doctrine laden material in the gospels/epistles.

Pauls incredulity, wonder, amazement is not read by me as difficulty.

This appears unspecifically true. The agnostics and atheists were eating Him up iano; pagans received Him in droves. Many religious jews could not give up the sadomasochistic ways that mainstream judaism can be accredited with culturally ingraining within them.

I read their problem as having to do with legalism.

Reasonably, when some accepted Christ, they modified His Word. The Dutch were the first of the modern Israelitish nations to carry the Babylonish/Roman brand of Christianity to other nations that they colonized, seeking raw materials and markets for their manufactured goods. They in turn were followed on the world stage by the French and then the British. In our day, it is Americans who are doing the bulk of the influencing.

I'm assuming modification of his word doesn't extend to scripture.

Granted, a pure message is hard to find. Even when digging for oneself. I wouldn't be prone to settling my theology on a notion regarding the book of Acts. So, what other arrows do you have in this quiver of yours re: the no-hell-gospel

The Protestant Reformation burst from Catholicism, and it was the same Catholic Church that all the reformers thought of as the true church gone corrupt. But the truth of the matter is that the Catholic Church was NEVER the true church, and the Protestant Reformation did not re-establish the 'true religion'. The Catholic Church is exactly what it has always publicly called itself: the Roman Catholic (Universal) Church. lol - it stands identified by its own words! It is not the Christian church, but the Roman Universal Church. It is a syncretistic religion, having its roots in Babylon. It is not the church of the Author and Father of Life.

I wasn't under the illusion that it was.

The Protestant Reformation simply established more forms of the Roman Catholic Church. It established denominations of false religion masquerading as the true religion. The Reformation simply reformed the Roman Universal Church into many varieties without a Pope. They altered ceremonial requirements and modified many of the more obvious corruptions. People then proceeded to spread these hybrid religions all over the world in their colonization of other areas. They were better than the Roman Universal variety, but they still were not of the truth.

Agreed..

One good thing that the 'protestant reformation' did produce was to release many people from a great deal of religious confusion and political slavery. But today, protestantism has lost its cutting edge. In many cases, it is nothing more than entertaining paganism. In other cases, it is a Sunday-morning fraternal organization.

Agreed. My impression of modern day Evangelical America is the same-in-essence as my impression of Catholic-to-the-hilt Ireland up to recently. Christian Religion not Christianity.

Now consider this: Was The Father involved in this? Absolutely, He was! He is the sovereign, omnipotent, King of Kings. He did not raise up these churches, but He permitted them to form. He could have stopped it at any time, but it was within His purpose to allow these things to occur and to build toward the beginning of TRUE LIFE. The Father governs all of His creation, and something of this magnitude could not have happened without His oversight. If He has oversight, and it happened without Him giving permission for it to occur, then He is not sovereign! Somebody put one over on Him!

Granted God permits all this to occur. There is method in this madness.

Israel's modern Christianity makes doctrine of little or no importance, leaving everyone free to do what is right in his own eyes. In the true church, it will produce the same tolerant non-judgmental "just do your own thing," politically correct, multicultural way of deism that we so commonly see accepted in Religious countries, and faith in trusting the Way, the Truth, and the Light to govern His creation vanishes. People in the church find justification for idolatry, for Sabbath-breaking, for murder, lying, stealing, just as the so-called "Christian" nation finds justification for those things.

This is what I see around me. And this is what I read of the church in the beginning. It has never been as it should be - even from the start..

Did you ever hear of Jesus using any of those methods; murder, lying, stealing, making war, committing adultery, breaking the Sabbath ” to solve His problems? He said, "I always do the will of My Father." He did not resort to those things, because they are not Christian, even though He was surrounded by people (the jews) who ostensibly were God's people and ostensibly keeping the commandments.

Er...Jesus wasn't a sinner. Not that I'm recommending anyone use these methods you list.

The gospels say that "He trusted no man," and He kept Himself separate from them spiritually even though He was among them constantly, healing, teaching, and receiving abuse and persecution because He was peculiar to them and a threat. How did He threaten them? By making them face up to their justifications, their lies to themselves.

Something he continues to do today by his spirit.

Many, many, many come across much difficulty with the acceptance, and therefore perception, of an unconditional ALL LOVING, supreme entity (able to maintain justice and righteousness) that would offer every man a chance at their winning lotto numbers.

I've perceived that in amongst the seemingly endless list of ways in which a person can find objection to kneeling before him.

'Churchians' are of this breed of spirit, and so, become much the same; they will not believe the Father of Life offers a 'wicked' Samaritan the same wages, considering all they have 'been taught about god'. If anyone is to see one, we highly recommend giving them a hug ...

There is plenty of room in evangelism to talk of the fathers love. Balance is the key to things I suppose.

Consider this iano: no one knew that the Great Rabbi was going to die until He was taken away (see John 20:9 and Luke 24:20-21), and for the vast majority of His ministry, hardly anyone even knew He was the Messiah. Yet, the bible says He preached "the Gospel." What Gospel did He preach if it did not include anything about His death?

lol - not a trick question.

He preached his death and resurrection. That people didn't perceive what he was speaking of doesn't alter the gospel preached. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation. It's not a matter of intellectual understanding of it.

Which is my general approach here. I don't actually suppose to convince anyone by means of well assembled argumentation. I use the format to insert gospel elements trusting that it will do it's work. Debate as a Trojan Horse for the gospel if you like.

You stated Paul delivered 'the bad news', which we refer to as the 'gospel of guilt' (tongue in cheek). We will not construct a case for anything other than the ACTUAL Gospel; hopefully we can discuss that one - lol.

Given that it is being preached to a guilty people, I can't see any reason for hiding the source of their guilt in the closet.

[qs]Thank you for the feedback, as we are better aware that our position is being viewed through a glass darkly. We do not mean Paul, personally, propogated a 'gospel of guilt'; perhaps like you, we feel Paul was a genuine black sheep, doing the best he could to have Faith in Reality. We love that guy ...[qs] We'll just have to agree to differ on this one I feel

Paul did not likely birth his one of a kind testimony intentionally for the jews/catholics/protestants to molest.

They simply performed as Religion always has; they took the Truth of the Father's Words and, by subtlety, formed from it a mass deception; the sadomasochistic heterodox 'gospel of guilt' that pervades modern (unfullfilled) reality.

The words are on the page to be examined for oneself to come to conclusions. Pauls gospel sounds strikingly similar to Jesus. It contains the same elements - include bad news.

And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many

The deceit being propagated by the modern church is all but evident to anyone willing to see.

No one with their wits about them would deny unmolested Reality; yet the ones 'with their wits' clearly see the hypocrisy within the 'true church'. It has caused them ill ...

The church isn't perfect. Its pretty shoddy in places. My view of your denomination is that it doesn't quite hit a home run on what gospel to promote and why. We can all throw stones at each other.

And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Be thankful for the religious/atheist spirit; such faith is expediting the Beginning of Life.

The one that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

If this was not the case, on that day, there may likely be no 'christians' for the Servant to turn away (whether they bring forth Living Water, or otherwise).

It's been a long post...

Not everyone who says to Me, ”Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Father's Mansion, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. “Many will say to Me on that day, ”Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ”I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’

I agree that that will be the case.

If you can see, a form of lawlessness is speaking hateful thoughts as teachings. There are many fine examples, but our favorite filthy Lie is, 'god will not love you if blah, blah, blah (fill in the blank)' or 'you WILL go to 'hell', if blah, blah, blah (fill in the blank)'. These may, both equally, stand together as the most 'evil' acts of destructive malignant aggression that a person can propagate. lol - it is no wonder such 'evangelic' techniques fail outside the prison ministries!

Like I say, balance is required. That folk can go off in hate mode doesn't sully the fact that one should preach the gospel as one understands it to be. I don't see much a case made for excluding vast swathes of scripture as you do.

It shall prove difficult to promote attempts towards making straight the Path, or cause it further detour, as such attempts are usually perceived as one in the same. As you know, Jesus began the former and was mutilated by religious people and politicians. To those who only believe the Father and Son and Spirit of Love ...

It is our hope, by faith and determination, ALL may rightfully discern that which the Father has prepared.

Amen.

If anybody made it through that, thank you ...

Don't do that again, will you not?

Mercy trumps Judgement

Not for those who'll reside in Hell..

3 online now:	dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin)
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1