Christ born at pentecost

[Timothy Bonney]

As a youngster in the SBC, I had the guilt trip put on me over "how many people have you won to the Lord?"

It just loads up your guilt factor and puts you on a works trajectory for Jesus putting knotches in your Gospel Gun!

I know what you mean I don't mind people asking me about sharing my faith. But I do mind when people want you to use bad evangelism techniques and poor theology to do it. The old term "soul winning" just makes me cringe. It implies that I can talk people into being Christians by some kind of sales technique and, as you've said, put another notch in my gun.

The idea doesn't fit either good Baptist or Wesleyan theology. And door to door ministry, like door to do sales, is a dead technique that (by the statistics) is only found to be unoffensive to persons who already believe. The last stats I've read showed that the less of a Christian background the person answering the door had the more likely they were to be highly offended and make it that much harder for someone else to actually share the gospel with them. IMHO, most door to door witnessing damages your opportunity to help someone find a relationship with Jesus, the whole point of the excercise.

The person in my last church who wanted me to do that kind of thing didn't care because they figured it was then ok to "sheep steal" and try to convince the already Christian to go to my church instead of theirs. Pushy and aggressive are two words I never want to hear about a methodology for sharing the gospel or promoting the church I serve.

My other bugaboo is people who insist on sharing their faith using insider Christian language that only Christians understand. "Are you saved?" "Are you born again>", "Have you been washed in the blood of the lamb?" I mean, anyone not raised in an evangelical church is just going to think "Huh, what they heck is he talking about?"

(By the way Ed, I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about any of this. Gene and I are just having a side conversastion in a troll thread. You got to do something when someone is doing a "Harold Camping" all over the forum." )

[grantsmill]

GODS Word divides the years into cycles of fifty.it further divides the first forty nine years into seven year cycles,every seventh year a sabbath.with the last jubilee in 1977a.d. the next seventh year sabbath on which,as one commandment,it was forbidden to plant crops is 2012a.d. no planting farms or gardens this year.

On what authority, scriptural, rabbinical, Ussheral or otherwise, have you arrived at which Gregorian year is sabbath (or jubilee)? And (assuming that it's really a Jewish year we're talking about), does it start in Nisan or in Tishrei, and in the Gregorian year you list or the preceding one?

previous posts to do with ezekiel chapter one and the 30th year show the fifty year cycle in relation to the present year.

the bible has two beginnings to the year.the first,the month starting with the new moon before the full moon connected to the feast of unleavened bread.the second start takes place on the day of atonement and runs in fifty year cycles.

[grantsmill]

How do you make the jump to Great Britain and the US? I don't follow it at all.

ephraim shall be a multitude of nations under one crown-the british empire-commonwealth.manasseh shall also be great-the u.s.by what they acomplished.the land that they own(or owned).the power that they have.the bible also refers to them as the merchants of tarshish.tarshish the land of tin-england.a lion and her young whelps.england and the nations that came out of her.

[grantsmill]

Gene and I are just having a side conversastion in a troll thread. You got to do something when someone is doing a "Harold Camping" all over the forum." )

a know very little about harold camping.i don't remember anything on the news about the proof from GODS Word he gave for the predictions he made.

GOD chose the foolish things to confound the wise.hidden from those who are wise and prudent.

[Neil Heath]

I'd say we might be disagreeing on who's wise and who's foolish here.

[Dave Roberts]

How do you make the jump to Great Britain and the US? I don't follow it at all.

ephraim shall be a multitude of nations under one crown-the british empire-commonwealth.manasseh shall also be great-the u.s.by what they acomplished.the land that they own(or owned).the power that they have.the bible also refers to them as the merchants of tarshish.tarshish the land of tin-england.a lion and her young whelps.england and the nations that came out of her.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. First, what is the starting point for your counting of years? How do you know which years were the jubilee years since Israel seems to have seldom observed them. Second, can't the appelations you have applied to the UK and the US be just as easily applied to the Babylonian and Persian Empires?

[grantsmill]

How do you make the jump to Great Britain and the US? I don't follow it at all.

ephraim shall be a multitude of nations under one crown-the british empire-commonwealth.manasseh shall also be great-the u.s.by what they acomplished.the land that they own(or owned).the power that they have.the bible also refers to them as the merchants of tarshish.tarshish the land of tin-england.a lion and her young whelps.england and the nations that came out of her.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. First, what is the starting point for your counting of years? How do you know which years were the jubilee years since Israel seems to have seldom observed them. Second, can't the appelations you have applied to the UK and the US be just as easily applied to the Babylonian and Persian Empires?

the numbers are under the heading 1967a.d. in scripture.babylon and persia are not the children of jacob and joseph.there are books out there called the united kingdom and the united states in bible prophecy.other peoples research into the subject.

[Haruo]

The problem is that if you actually look at Bible prophecy, there is no mention of the United States, and the United Kingdom refers to Israel under Saul, David and Solomon, not to any governmental entity in Britain (let alone the Commonwealth). At least that's the problem I have when I read people's attempts to find otherwise. I love to sing "Jerusalem", but I do not actually believe Jesus set foot in England in his earthly lifetime.

[Dave Roberts]

the numbers are under the heading 1967a.d. in scripture.babylon and persia are not the children of jacob and joseph.there are books out there called the united kingdom and the united states in bible prophecy.other peoples research into the subject.

I am well aware of this kind of research. I'm convinced it is a total misuse of the prophetic literature of the Old Testament. The prophets spoke to people in their own day. This kind of thinking means that the meanings of these prophets is only for us (who have the keys) and not for the people to whom the prophets spoke. That means that God was deliberately hiding his message for 20 to 30 centuries only for us. IMHO, that is a total misuse of holy scripture turning it into material only for future forecasting.

[Haruo]

Of course, the alternative is that prophecy was true both for those to whom it was given initially, and (in a different interpretation) for us (and possibly also for others in the interim, and for yet others in the future). I am inclined to this view. I believe the OT passages appropriated by the NT writers were not misappropriated, but reapplied in new circumstances. I believe that the slaves of the pre-Emancipation US were not wrong to apply prophecy to their own times and circumstances. For me the issue is the hubris involved in thinking that our own reading is the ultimate, the "truly true", reading. God is far greater than that, and so is human imagination.

[Timothy Bonney]

I am inclined to this view. I believe the OT passages appropriated by the NT writers were not misappropriated, but reapplied in new circumstances.

Hauro I'd agree with you. However, the NT writers have been deemed inspired by the Church so that their interpretation is seen as carrying authority. However that authority doesn't extend to new, novel, or extra-scriptural interpretations of prophetic writers which may or may not have any validity.

[Haruo]

I am inclined to this view. I believe the OT passages appropriated by the NT writers were not misappropriated, but reapplied in new circumstances.

Hauro I'd agree with you. However, the NT writers have been deemed inspired by the Church so that their interpretation is seen as carrying authority. However that authority doesn't extend to new, novel, or extra-scriptural interpretations of prophetic writers which may or may not have any validity.

As far as the authority conferred by the Church goes, of course you're right. But I don't limit God to what the Church may deem inspired. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church deems Enoch, Jubilees and the three books of Meqabyan inspired. Perhaps the rest of the Church's failure to do so is due to ignorance on their part rather than any mistake on the part of the Ethiopians. But I recognize God's ability to inspire local and even individual interpretations, recognizing them as such.

[Dave Roberts]

Of course, the alternative is that prophecy was true both for those to whom it was given initially, and (in a different interpretation) for us (and possibly also for others in the interim, and for yet others in the future). I am inclined to this view. I believe the OT passages appropriated by the NT writers were not misappropriated, but reapplied in new circumstances. I believe that the slaves of the pre-Emancipation US were not wrong to apply prophecy to their own times and circumstances. For me the issue is the hubris involved in thinking that our own reading is the ultimate, the "truly true", reading. God is far greater than that, and so is human imagination.

I tend to agree with you, but I sense that these books were not wrenched from their historical context to do that. Modern numerology and other pre-millennial efforts require detatching them from their history.

[Timothy Bonney]

As far as the authority conferred by the Church goes, of course you're right. But I don't limit God to what the Church may deem inspired. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church deems Enoch, Jubilees and the three books of Meqabyan inspired. Perhaps the rest of the Church's failure to do so is due to ignorance on their part rather than any mistake on the part of the Ethiopians. But I recognize God's ability to inspire local and even individual interpretations, recognizing them as such.

Perhaps. But even in the case you mentioned about this was not an individual decision but a decision of a body of the church. I don't even think Baptists, as freedom minded as Baptists are, would say that each Christian gets to decide what books or writings should be considered canonically inspired. Otherwise, what about Joseph Smith's "Book of Mormon" or the "Left Behind" books, or even a series of sermons by your favorite (or least favorite) pastor?

There are some things that cannot be individually decided in the church otherwise the possibility of theological error rises exponentially and we end up with the "Haruo Canon" and the "Tim Bonney Canon", and the "whatever sounds good to me personally" canon.

[Haruo]

As far as the authority conferred by the Church goes, of course you're right. But I don't limit God to what the Church may deem inspired. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church deems Enoch, Jubilees and the three books of Meqabyan inspired. Perhaps the rest of the Church's failure to do so is due to ignorance on their part rather than any mistake on the part of the Ethiopians. But I recognize God's ability to inspire local and even individual interpretations, recognizing them as such.

Perhaps. But even in the case you mentioned about this was not an individual decision but a decision of a body of the church. I don't even think Baptists, as freedom minded as Baptists are, would say that each Christian gets to decide what books or writings should be considered canonically inspired. Otherwise, what about Joseph Smith's "Book of Mormon" or the "Left Behind" books, or even a series of sermons by your favorite (or least favorite) pastor?

There are some things that cannot be individually decided in the church otherwise the possibility of theological "error rises exponentially and we end up with the "Haruo Canon" and the "Tim Bonney Canon", and the "whatever sounds good to me personally" canon.

I agree but.

First of all, there is nothing, in a free society, to keep anybody and everybody from coming up with their personal canon if they so choose. And in fact many people do so. (Hymnody is often involved.)

The Mormon scriptures are just as much the result of "a decision of a body of the church" as the Ethiopians' approval of Meqyaban, unless you can show grounds for distinguishing the two. (The Book of Mormon, of course, is Joseph Smith's own doing, whether as author--outsiders' view--or as translator--orthodox LDS view; but its acceptance as scripture, like that of D&C and the Pearl of Great Price, is the church's doing.) There's a difference between your own (and your church's) fondness for Wesleyan writings and the LDS fondness for Smith's, and I'm sure the SDA's fondness for Mrs. White's stuff falls somewhere in between, but these are church choices, not individual ones, though your individual choice to adhere to UMC views is yours, not the church's, to make. It seems clear to me that each believer has his or her own canon, which may or may not be identical to that taught by his or her church. When you accept a baptismal candidate, or a membership candidate, do you quiz her or him on her or his personal view of issues of canonical breadth? Of course, if someone volunteers that they accept the canonicity of the Qur'an or Science & Health or Stranger in a Strange Land, this might cause you to inquire further, but if they don't mention it, I doubt if you ask.

[Timothy Bonney]

First of all, there is nothing, in a free society, to keep anybody and everybody from coming up with their personal canon if they so choose. And in fact many people do so. (Hymnody is often involved.)

To some extent that is unavoidable. But the consensus of the Church is that our personal views have to answer to a higher authority, that being the canonical scriptures. If we want to decide there is no authority but personal authority there is also definition to what is and isn't Christianity.

The Mormon scriptures are just as much the result of "a decision of a body of the church" as the Ethiopians' approval of Meqyaban, unless you can show grounds for distinguishing the two.

No, the LDS is not "a body of the Church" in that its views are almost completely out of sync with how the Church has historically interpreted its theology, its mission, history and even its origins. Any one can call their organization a "Christian Church" but that doesn't make it so if their beliefs aren't to be found even in a very broad interpretation of what is "Christian."

There's a difference between your own (and your church's) fondness for Wesleyan writings and the LDS fondness for Smith's, and I'm sure the SDA's fondness for Mrs. White's stuff falls somewhere in between, but these are church choices, not individual ones, though your individual choice to adhere to UMC views is yours, not the church's, to make.

True but if I choose to hold views that are largely different than the UMC than my views aren't "United Methodist." (And, by the way, I could no longer by a UMC pastor) If a person chooses to hold views that are substantially different than those taught by Christianity that person may well not be a Christian. That still doesn't change the fact that what is "Christian" and what is "Bible" was a decision of the Church and not a decision of individuals.

It seems clear to me that each believer has his or her own canon, which may or may not be identical to that taught by his or her church. When you accept a baptismal candidate, or a membership candidate, do you quiz her or him on her or his personal view of issues of canonical breadth? Of course, if someone volunteers that they accept the canonicity of the Qur'an or Science & Health or Stranger in a Strange Land, this might cause you to inquire further, but if they don't mention it, I doubt if you ask.

No we don't specifically ask their views of the canon. However, we do have Baptismal Vows which include the following
"To receive and profess the Christian faith as contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments." And what is in the Old and New Testament is listed in our Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith.

Hauro, I'm not saying that people don't have individual views. Nor am I saying that we don't each have our own personal emphasis on faith. However the Canon of Scripture is to be placed above our own opinions not equal to them or beneath our own opinions. That doesn't mean we don't also use tradition, reason, and experience to decide what we believe and figure out how to read the scriptures. But not just any belief, and doctrine, or any theology can be viewed as "Christian."

I guess I'm left wondering if you believe there is a definition of what constitutes Christianity and what does not? Because if any belief can be a "Christian" belief than basically there is no "Christianity." As a universalist that might appeal to you. But as someone who believes grace comes from God through Jesus Christ, I find that pretty frightening.

[Haruo]

I will take these one at a time, I may not have enough time to do them all justice today.

First of all, there is nothing, in a free society, to keep anybody and everybody from coming up with their personal canon if they so choose. And in fact many people do so. (Hymnody is often involved.)

To some extent that is unavoidable. But the consensus of the Church is that our personal views have to answer to a higher authority, that being the canonical scriptures. If we want to decide there is no authority but personal authority there is also definition to what is and isn't Christianity.

I agree that that is the consensus of the church, but as I read the scriptures I am struck by how often individuals in it (patriarchs, prophets, even the occasional priest, not to mention a host of laity) receive valid personal revelations from God that run counter to the then prevailing consensus of the Church and the then prevailing canon of scripture. And since I'm not inclined to dismiss other generations' witness and assert that our own is final, I believe that God relieved me of the obsession with drinking and showed me clearly that I should abstain from alcohol, and revealed himself to me clearly enough that it got my attention and awoke my faith. I do not believe that anyone else necessarily needs to abstain from alcohol, and I find dogmatic "thou-shalt-not-drink"-ism in the name of one whose first adult miracle involved making water into wine rather unconvincing. I certainly don't exect my "second bottle of Almadén Mountain Chablis" to be proof binding on anybody else. Though I've found it does "resonate" with quite a few folks who haven't had it themselves.

[Haruo]

The Mormon scriptures are just as much the result of "a decision of a body of the church" as the Ethiopians' approval of Meqyaban, unless you can show grounds for distinguishing the two.

No, the LDS is not "a body of the Church" in that its views are almost completely out of sync with how the Church has historically interpreted its theology, its mission, history and even its origins. Any one can call their organization a "Christian Church" but that doesn't make it so if their beliefs aren't to be found even in a very broad interpretation of what is "Christian."

Of course, the question is (as you came to later) just how "broad" is "very broad". It seems to me that the vast majority of the early LDS adherents were very sincere Christians who came out of the "orthodox" churches in response to what they saw as the apostasy of the orthodox. This was not in itself all that different from the Reformation, or the earlier Franciscan movement, or the rise of monasticism, or... I am sure you know that Luther made an effort to change the canon of scripture, and that his reforms in that area had some practical effect at least in Scandinavia for a century or two. The LDS movement has much in common with both Millerism and Campbellism, and at least some of the outgrowths of both of those are somewhat heterodox or even heretical (think Branch Davidians, and the stricter end of Church of Christ types, but others are more or less orthodox (think the ecumenical end of Adventism, and the Disciples of Christ). So while obviously the bulk of the Church's consensus doesn't agree with the LDS on canon issues, I'm not at all sure I can deny them church status.

[Timothy Bonney]

Hauro I think it might be helpful to state what I see as the issues we are discussing here. We can change the list if you like. But this is what I see.

Questions:

1. Broadly, what is Christianity?

You consider the LDS a Christian Church (I think?). But they don't believe in the Trinity, they don't believe in the unique nature of Christ's incarnation, they don't believe that God is eternal but that God used to be a human being, etc. I could go on for a while but the list of non-Christian doctrines is just huge.

2. Related to #1, What are the most basic Christian belief?

3. How are questions #1 an #2 decided? In other words what are the authorities for Christian doctrine?

And, just so you know where I'm coming from I have some basic premises that I'm following that you may choose to agree/disagree with.

My Assumptions:

1. There has to be a set of beliefs and doctrines which define Christianity or else Christianity is diluted into a meaninglessness or simply meaning anything or nothing.

2. I assume there has to be some authority somewhere in the Christian faith be that the General Conference in my Church or in your case the local church. But that the authority cannot be reduced to the single individual. Otherwise, taking it to the extreme, someone could say that being a Christian consists of worshipping their family Dog and it would be "Christianity" if the individual gets to decide.

[Haruo]

Well put questions, I'll be back to these tomorrow.

[Neil Heath]

The Mormon scriptures are just as much the result of "a decision of a body of the church" as the Ethiopians' approval of Meqyaban, unless you can show grounds for distinguishing the two.

No, the LDS is not "a body of the Church" in that its views are almost completely out of sync with how the Church has historically interpreted its theology, its mission, history and even its origins. Any one can call their organization a "Christian Church" but that doesn't make it so if their beliefs aren't to be found even in a very broad interpretation of what is "Christian."

Tim, I think one small detail may be important. In reading back thru this thread, I noticed that you used a capital "C" but Haruo used a lower case "c" in referring to the decision-making body. I see those as being different. Maybe they weren't meant that way, but Haruo's comment doesn't necessarily refer to the body being a Christian one, though you seem to have taken it to mean that.

[Haruo]

As a universalist that ("the idea that there is no Christianity") might appeal to you. But as someone who believes grace comes from God through Jesus Christ, I find that pretty frightening.

I see a major misunderstanding here: the notion that as a universalistically-inclined Christian I don't believe grace comes from God through Jesus Christ. If that is your belief, please disabuse yourself of it! I simply see "Christianity" as a human construct, and don't believe God is constrained by it.

[Timothy Bonney]

I see a major misunderstanding here: the notion that as a universalistically-inclined Christian I don't believe grace comes from God through Jesus Christ. If that is your belief, please disabuse yourself of it! I simply see "Christianity" as a human construct, and don't believe God is constrained by it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent you views! I would say that if I were a universalist though, I would probably place a much lower emphasis on Christian doctrine than I do now because I doubt it would matter to me as much.

Where we may disagree here is that I don't believe that the Church is a human construct. I believe the Church was instituted by Christ and that Christ had some intentions for the church, its theology and even to some extent its polity. I do believe denominationalism is in part a human construct having been made necessary by the failings of the church to celebrate its full unity in Christ and human inability to be all God intends us to be.

[grantsmill]

The problem is that if you actually look at Bible prophecy, there is no mention of the United States, and the United Kingdom refers to Israel under Saul, David and Solomon, not to any governmental entity in Britain (let alone the Commonwealth). At least that's the problem I have when I read people's attempts to find otherwise. I love to sing "Jerusalem", but I do not actually believe Jesus set foot in England in his earthly lifetime.

ephraim shall become a multitude of nations-the commonwealth.
the saxons,the sons of isaac.

[grantsmill]

the numbers are under the heading 1967a.d. in scripture.babylon and persia are not the children of jacob and joseph.there are books out there called the united kingdom and the united states in bible prophecy.other peoples research into the subject.

I am well aware of this kind of research. I'm convinced it is a total misuse of the prophetic literature of the Old Testament. The prophets spoke to people in their own day. This kind of thinking means that the meanings of these prophets is only for us (who have the keys) and not for the people to whom the prophets spoke. That means that God was deliberately hiding his message for 20 to 30 centuries only for us. IMHO, that is a total misuse of holy scripture turning it into material only for future forecasting.

the people in the time of Christ didn't know he would die on the cross,the scriptures had not been opened to them.
GOD told daniel to seal up the book until the end.
there are examples in GODS Word of people who were told they didn't need to know the meaning,that it was for an appointed time,or the time was long.it would not effect their salvation-life by not knowing at that time.