Things we can agree to disagree on

[jgredline]

Hi Lovely
I agree with much of what you have said and disagree with some of what you have said. Same for JTB.. Now does the fact we have some differances of opinion regarding these issues you raised and are are troubled over mean that we are not brother and sisters in Christ? NO.
For you see, if there is one thing I have learned over the years is that the Bible will continue to reveal new truths the more you read it and study it. This is what makes the preciouse scriptures Awsome as God makes them come alive.
I will give you an example..
When I was teaching, I put forth a huge effort in presenting the scriptures to the very best of the ability that the Lord gave me.. The last book I taught was the the Gospel of John.. It took roughly 1 year to go through it and felt in my heart and mind that I really did a Good job in teaching it..
Soon afterwards My Pastor started to preach/teach the Gospel of John.. Well I gots to say that I learned so much going though his teaching that I felt I did not know the Gospel of John at all and yet I was teaching the advanced class!!! But you see later when we were able to sit down and exchange notes, there was many things that I taught that he had missed..
So when we talk about issues like the the rapture, depending on your level of understanding there will likley be three or 4 differant views.. They have nothing to do with Salvation so choose your position.
My best friend and a person whom I seek alot of biblical advice from believes that women can be pastors and I don't hold that view. I have debated this with him for three or four years. We both agree to disagree on this because again its not a Salvation issue..

There are some things that are not ok to agree to disagree.
1) Spirit driven. In his post he believes in UR
2) Salvation is by grace and not by works
3) Inarrancy of scripture
4) Trinity
5) Jesus is God
6) Heaven and hell are literal places
7) The resurection
8) Man Kind is a sinner and can't save himself
9) The virgin birth
10) His second coming ( although benny hinn has seen him a few times)

Now there are many other things, but these are some that come to mind right off the bat..
Anyway Lovely. I am sure I will think of more, but for now thats it.



Vic
Can you define what you mean by pre-wrath??

 

[Vic C.]

Vic
Can you define what you mean by pre-wrath??

It is what it claims to be:

The harpazio is just before God's Wrath, but NOT before any period of Great Tribulation. Although most PreWrather adhere to the 7year Trib/Wrath period, it's not imperative.

Look it up J, you might find it interesting... and you can always ask one of us questions if something confuses you.

 

[jgredline]

Vic
Can you define what you mean by pre-wrath??

It is what it claims to be:

The harpazio is just before God's Wrath, but NOT before any period of Great Tribulation. Although most PreWrather adhere to the 7year Trib/Wrath period, it's not imperative.

Look it up J, you might find it interesting... and you can always ask one of us questions if something confuses you.

Vic
Yea, I will take a look into it. As I have said, the end times is not one of my better topics in the bible. I have a very average understanding of it. Perhaps after this I will have changed my mind, but for not as far as I am concerned, God can take his church today.

 

[jgredline]

Hey Vic
Whats with the C ?
dID u get married :-D

 

[Solo]

Hey Vic
Whats with the C ?
dID u get married :-D

I'll bet he kept his maiden name. Whatever the case we should party!!!!

 

[lovely]

Thanks for your response, Javier. How did you get that particular list? I wonder what other people's lists look like. The Lord bless you, and thanks again for trying to respond to my rambled questions.

 

[jgredline]

Thanks for your response, Javier. How did you get that particular list? I wonder what other people's lists look like. The Lord bless you, and thanks again for trying to respond to my rambled questions.

Lovely
I did not get it from any particular place.
As I started to type, I was just writing what I fealt in my heart.
I am sure I can come up with more. I just need to think about.
You do have a good idea. I wonder what other peoples list would look like?
Come on people, start with the List.
Blessings,
Javier

 

[Vic C.]

Hey Vic
Whats with the C ?
dID u get married :-D

I'll bet he kept his maiden name. Whatever the case we should party!!!!

• 

those dancing M&M's frighten me!

 

[Steve]

I don't believe in the Rapture, or the Millenium.
I don't believe the Church has replaced Israel.
I don't believe there are 3 separate and distinct PERSONS in the Godhead
I don't really believe the Lord is coming back anytime soon.

 

[John the Baptist]

I don't believe in the Rapture, or the Millenium.
I don't believe the Church has replaced Israel.
I don't believe there are 3 separate and distinct PERSONS in the Godhead
I don't really believe the Lord is coming back anytime soon.

*****
Well, some folks are in for a very rude awakening!
---John

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Am I a Pretribulationists, Midtribulationists, Posttribulationists â€â€To be honest I have never given such things much thought. So at this point I cannot say.

As far as my thoughts on whether fallen angles have mated with humansâ€â€Again I haven’t given it much thought. So, again, I cannot say.

In terms of my beliefs on Hell all I can say is I believe it is a real place and it is where non-believers go (those who have rejected the free gift of Salvation which is found in faith in Christ).

“Once-saved-always saved.†I believe in the Preservation of the Saints. I have a problem with the term “Once-saved-always saved.†The following articulates my beliefs well:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perseverance of the Saints does not mean "once saved always saved". This corruption of the doctrine has been popular in recent years, but has never been a true representation of the doctrine. "Once saved always saved" is more keenly given the name "Perseverance of the sinner" instead of "the saint". For it teaches that man can be saved by Christ and then sin habitually, do whatever he wants, and then still "persevere to the end". Perseverance of the saints does not teach this. Perseverance of the saints teaches that once God has renewed the heart of a sinner through the application of the redemption wrought by Christ upon the cross, he will continue to be saved and show forth the fruits of that salvation. The sinner perseveres because of Christ, but he continually shows himself as one who has been changed by Christ. God has saved the individual and will sanctify him until the end when he is ultimately glorified, and in heaven. It does not mean man has a license to sin. Those who think they have a license to sin are not changed and saved by grace. They are still in sin. Those who are saved by grace and changed, desire to show forth the fruits of that salvation. God motions the heart to good work, and continues that good work to the end. John 6:37-39, "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."Phil. 1:6, "Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:"1 Thess. 5:23-24, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it."2 Tim. 4:18, "And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."1 Peter 1:23, "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."Romans 8:29, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."phesians 2:10, "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/a ... rance.html

As far as the whole Calvinist/Arminian thing goes I am not settled on what I believe. I cannot discount the sovereignty of God or man’s free will. At this point I lean more toward Calvinism. Of course, to be honest the whole debate on the issue has been far from my thoughts as of late. Right now, being a Seminary student I have been focusing more on my classes and on witnessing. The President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. Daniel L. Akin has said a number of times that if when you hear the initials J.C. and you think of John Calvin before Jesus Christ there is something seriously wrong with your theology. I have to agree with him on that. While I think the Calvinist/Arminian debate is a worthy consideration it should never be the most important theological issue to a Christian.

As far as the interpretation of Genesis 1 goes I believe in a literal seven days of creation.

The above listed is at this point what I can agree to disagree onâ€â€as other issues are mentioned I may chime in and say whether I can agree to disagree. As far as what one MUST believe in order to be a Christian I cannot agree to disagree.

 

[jgredline]

Nocturnal
Amen. I agree. I do lean more towards calvin, but as I have stated many times. In my eyes and mind both doctrines have problems and I am in the middle of both. I can debate both sides to a stale mate so I avoid those discussions.
Blessings,
Jg

 

[Solo]

As far as my thoughts on the whether fallen angels have matted with humansâ€â€Again I haven’t given it much thought. So, again, I cannot say.

"Matted" is what wrestlers call that act. :

 

[jgredline]

I don't believe in the Rapture, or the Millenium.
I don't believe the Church has replaced Israel.
I don't believe there are 3 separate and distinct PERSONS in the Godhead
I don't really believe the Lord is coming back anytime soon.

Hi Steve
I do believe in the rapture and the millenial Kingdom. I believe the Bible is very clear on this and there is no disputing it. Its just a matter of when? So I disagree on your first point.

The church has not repalced Israel and replacement theology is wrong. We agree on your second point.

Here is what I believe in regards to your third point; God is one in Essence, but three in Persons. God has one Nature, but three Centers of Consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three Whos; there is one It, but three Is. This is a mystery, but not a contradiction. It would be contradictory to say God was only one person, but also was three persons, or that God is only one nature but has three natures. But to declare, as orthodox Christians do, that God is one essence, eternally revealed in three distinct persons, is not a contradiction.
So I disagree with you on the third point.

I believe the Lord can come back and take his church anyday now. So again we disagree..

Can you explain what you believe the God head to be?

Blessings, Javier

 

[airdrop]

I'll play.

As far as the interpretation of Genesis 1 goes I believe in a literal seven days of creation.

I used to believe this as well. However, I've read some things that have led me to a change of opinion. On this, I agree to disagree. :-D

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

As far as my thoughts on the whether fallen angels have matted with humansâ€â€Again I haven’t given it much thought. So, again, I cannot say.

"Matted" is what wrestlers call that act. :

Wow, I cannot believe how bad I botched that sentence up. Go figure, even after I wrote it in Microsoft Word and reread what I wrote. Well, if there was any doubt about me being perfect I just dispelled it (I’m joking of course, I would never be foolish enough to say I am perfectâ€â€Only Christ who dwells within me is perfect).

 

[jgredline]

I'll play.

As far as the interpretation of Genesis 1 goes I believe in a literal seven days of creation.

I used to believe this as well. However, I've read some things that have led me to a change of opinion. On this, I agree to disagree. :-D

There are many theologians that believe in the gap theory including Jack Hayford. This came as a shock to me a few years back. For the most part it is liberal theologians that hold to this position. I disagree with it. I believe the the 6 days of creation with Jesus resting on the 7th day.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sc ... cienc5.htm

 

[airdrop]

It's not the Gap Theory that I'm talking about, although thanks for the link, that was very informative. And like you, to me there is nothing to support the Gap Theory.

It is the translation of the word "day", the last word of Gen 1:5, "...the first day." I realize that the folks who translated the word Hebrew to English had certain reasons for it, methods of translating, etc. Here is what my Strong's says:

3117: (1a) the word represents the period of "daylight" as contrasted with nighttime...
(1b) the word denotes a period of 24 hours

Both of those do lend themselves to a literal "day", but it continues:

(2) can also signify a period of time of unspecified duration
(2a) ..."day" refers to the entire period of God's resting from creating the universe
(2b) This "day" began after He completed the creative acts of the seventh day and extends atleast to the return of Christ (I'm not sure what creative act of the seventh day he's talking about...
(2d) Here "day" refers to the entire period envisioned in the first six days of creation
(3)Another nuance appears in Gen 2:17, where the word represents a "point of time" or "a moment"

Later on down it does reference that these are 24 hour days based on Ex 20:9-11, among other verses, to lend more towards the literal "day". God wanted to give us a way to measure our time, a 7 day calendar with an example of how to use that time (rest on the Sabbath). But the only way to make the translation from a timeless God to us is to relate it in a way that a human can understand: the rise and fall of the sun.

This is what I consider:

There is a beginning and an end to the first six days, and only a beginning to the 7th in which God rested. To me, he's still resting on the seventh day, which is over 6,000 years old and counting.

On the third day, He created vegetation, with plants bearing seed and trees bearing fruit. That can't happen in 24 hours (to my knowledge), unless God interefered, but there is no basis for that.

An aweful lot of things occured on the 6th day, to include Adam having major surgery (a joke), and Adam naming all the animals. If that all happened in one day, more particularly 12 hours of sunlight, he'd be real tired.

I don't accept the Gap theory, I guess if a label was necessary, I am an "old earth creationist". But, though interesting to discuss, it's also a forrest for the trees discussion. So I choose to agree to disagree! :-D

 

[Solo]

On the first 24 hour day.....

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Genesis 1:5

On the third 24 hour day.....

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. Genesis 1:12-13


On the fourth 24 hour day, God created the sun and moon and stars to divide the day from the night, for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and for years, and still today it runs the same as it did then......

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19

It looks like God gave us enough detail in this account that we could perceive that he made the heavens and the earth in six 24 hour days. And all manner of life being mature to reproduce immediately also. What an amazing God!

 

[jgredline]

OK
Here is another one that ''perhaps'' we can agree to disagree on.

IMO the best english bibles are the KJV, NKJV, NASB and the ESV..

The worst NIV, RSV,

Books that call themselves bibles that should be burned. The message,

Any other for or against??

NOTE: This is not a KJV ONLY debate