Well maybe you should play this game so you can feel good about yourself!
Oops, I almost forgot to close my formatting: < /sarcasm>
Posted on 01/16/2007 8:00:22 AM PST by cowboyfan88
Well maybe you should play this game so you can feel good about yourself!
Oops, I almost forgot to close my formatting: < /sarcasm>
I don't have a worldview...I have a 'heaven' view...You can sail the ship...I'm enjoying the cruise by sitting in the lifeboat...
This a a Spiritual Kingdom...
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
And THAT Kindom won't show up until Jesus shows up AGAIN...Because He is the King of that Kingdom and He WILL sit on the Throne of that Kingdom when it gets here...And THAT Kindgom is not here, yet...
That's a pity, since your orientation means you need to ignore more than 90% of the Bible. Only a handful of verses speak of the life to come. Most of God's Word is an instruction manual for this life.
The problem with reducing your Christianity to a scale model of the real thing, small enough to fit between your ears, is that this perspective renders you unfit for Kingdom service, for carrying out the King's assignments, for His glory.
What you are advocating is emotional masturbation, not condign adoration of and service to the One who reigns today from the Father's right hand.
Whatever floats yer boat...
The Bible I read is about a King...And a Kingdom...And how to prepare us for that Kingdom...
Yep...God wants educated people like you to study an old, dead language that He hasn't messed with for 2000 years so you have some idea what God has to say...You go ahead and keep believing that (snicker)...
;-) back at ya!
"Among born again Christians, 29% claim it is possible to communicate with the dead."
They're right, it IS possible.
But it's not a good, wholesome or wise thing to do.
Because when you open yourself up to that sort of thing, someone may very well talk to you, but it may very well not be someone dead at all, but someone of an altogether different nature.
Trafficking in spirits is a bad idea. Now, angels or spirits of the dead may come and knock YOU on the head for some good purpose. But if you go looking to drag them up from the grave, well, you're asking for it. The Biblical story of Saul gives an example. He DID talk to the dead, in the story, but it didn't work out so well for him.
If you see the dead, which happens, you see them. But don't conjure them. For who knows what you're really conjuring.
Jesus said, "I have not come do abolish the Law, but to fulfill it."
No, I don't adhere to the Ceremonial Law, etc. But, you can't understand the Gospel without understanding Genesis 3. You can't understand marriage without Genesis 1 and 2. And so on...New Testament doctrine cannot be understood apart from an understanding of the Old Testament...and particularly, the Book of Genesis.
"The woman he referred to didn't have wacky ideas because she's female."
No, she had wacky ideas as soon as she thought that it was Biblical to be a female pastor.
He's mischaracterized nothing. It may not be representative of your particular flavor of dispensationalism, but it is in fact representative of a expression of dispensationalism that is not uncommon.
This is a very important distinction. For an interesting exercise, check out this "Worldview Test". According to this test, I am a bad Christian who has admittedly good theological sophistication. The problem is that its worldview is a particular shade of Evangelical Christianity and right-wing republicanism. If you're at all libertarian or populist, you have a "non-Christian worldview." Similarly, if you are at all dubious of a 7,000 literal reading of Genesis, you are a bad Christian.
I have a pretty wide range of friends and acquaintances. And I read and study quite widely. From seminary, 30 years ago, until now, most of my associates share my "particular flavor of dispensationalism." Maybe my "flavor" is not that unusual.
While I agree that an understanding of the Old Testament will help one understand the New Testament, I do not agree that we can use the Old Testament as authority for doctrine in the church of Christ. As Christ said, He came to fulfill the Law. Once it was fulfilled, it was no longer binding (Galatians 3:24-25). Paul also tells us that the writings of the Old Testament "were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope" (Romans 15:4).
Funny, I scored a 96%!
Sure we do...our understanding of the nature of God depends, in large part, upon His self-revelation in the OT. The Cultural Mandate to be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth has never been abrogated. I think you would be surprised to discover that a lot of our doctrine comes from the OT.
Remember, "doctrine" is what we teach. 2 Tim 3:16-17, "ALL" scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for teaching [doctrine], reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. And Paul said that he did not fail to teach the "whole counsel" of God...his Scriptures were the OT. We are not subject to the ceremonial laws, but the rest still applies.
Don't discount the OT too quickly.
I am not discounting the Old Testament. I may not have worded what I was trying to say as well as I should have. Let me see if I can explain what I am saying. When we have clear teaching on a subject in the New Testament, that is our authority on that subject.
Your classification is: Strong Biblical Worldview Thinker
I got an 89%, apparantly my lack of disdain for the lottery and my belief that all graduating high school students should have to pass a standarized test husts my biblical world view.
I guess some Catholics might just know what the Bible says after all....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.