|
| Bible Based or Christ Based? |
|
| |
| Today it hit me. There is a strong implication that the phrase “bible based church” is centered more on studying the bible than on coming to know Christ. Yes, studying the bible is important, but …. John 5: 39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life. There’s a time to study scripture and get to know Christ that way, and there’s a time to put it away and become aware of the presence of God in us and around us. Does anyone claim to be in a prayer based church? A praise or adoration based church? A sacrament based church? In reality, we should be a Christ based church. Bible study is supportive of that as are prayer, praise, adoration, and the means that Christ institutes to help us experience Him. In the end, it’s not how much scripture we know that really matters. It’s really all about the quality of our relationship with Christ. MT 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' [NIV] Gene |
|
| To add a comment to "Bible Based or Christ Based? " |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| January 11, 2008 |
 |
|
|
| I agree totally...and though we are a Bible-Based Church, we are more importantly a Christ-Based Church. The Holy Liturgy is centered around Christ (through His Word and through Himself). The Sacraments are Centered around Christ. All of these things require both Christ and His Church. What is prayer without Christ? What is Liturgy without "the work of His people people" (see the Greek definition for leitourgia). We are all called to participate in all of these things with Christ. What is Bapsism without the Holy Spirit? What is Reconcilliation if we are not truly sorry for our sins? What is forgivness without Christ's Sacrificial Love? What would Holy Matrimony be if it did not mirror the covenant between Christ and His Church. The Scripture Canon is only one very important part of the Church. |
|
|
| January 11, 2008 |
|
|
|
| Our church considers itself a bible based church, but that is not the end of it. If you don't put what you read in the bible into practice, that it is just another book...Jesus, just another man. My goal in life is to be more like Jesus, and I can say that probably the majority of the other people in my church feel the same way. Yet we won't know what Jesus was like without the bible. And it is important to know scripture, so that we have our defenses ready if faced with challenges. I would agree, that in light of the quality of our relationship with Christ, scripture pales in comparison...but I think the two go hand in hand. There are many who think that reading the bible is enough, learning scripture is all they need. People need to know the Lord personally, and have an active and ongoing relationship with Him. Without that, they will not see the kingdom of Heaven. |
|
|
| January 11, 2008 |
|
|
|
Gene,
I often wonder if we in the mainline churches will approach Jesus in the day of judgment and hear those very words, "I never knew you". I am afraid that all to many people who call themselves by the name of Christ will hear that response. I pray God will continue to work in my heart both through His Word and Spirit so I will hear "Well done good and faithful servent, enter into my rest."
peace |
|
|
| January 11, 2008 |
|
|
|
Really well said!
How often do we find people trying to beat each other up using the Bible? I think it also shows a major difference in two forms of church message - preaching or teaching. I find that most Bible based churches are teaching churches. The message is centered on the word and understanding what is being said. On the other hand, preaching messages focus more on the aspects of living a Christian life and use scripture as the basis for understanding how it applies.
Both are acceptable. And, if both are centered on Christ, why add special words t the name of the church?
Red Gene |
|
|
| January 12, 2008 |
|
|
|
It just seems to me that if we all focus our eyes, our hearts, our lives on Christ then this constant fission going on all flip around and the body of Christ (the church) can be united. But I think that we have fundamentaly a spirit of distrust that continue to get in the way, which is what drives people to want to use labels such as "bible based".
And while labels serve to highlight something important, they create a problem.
People live up to the label to which they become attached, for better or for worse. Countless studies have shown what happens when parents or teachers label students. A seemlingly innocent statement on the part of parent can have oustanding....or severe... consequences in the life of a child. It works the same way with employees. Label someone a certain way and guess what, that's exactly what happens.
So if we label a church as being bible centered, that's what happens. The focus of the Christian life is on scripture. Other elements critical to the life of the Christain become diminished or evaporate altogether.
AC 2:41 Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. AC 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
"A personal relationship with Jesus Christ" is the point. We all know that frequent study of scripture is vital to the Christian life, but it has to be in concert with the other elements that also serve to bring us into a closer relationship with Him.
The more we integrate these elements into the daily and weekly life of the Christian, the closer each gets to Christ, the closer we get to God, and the closer we get to each other.
"They will know that we are Christians by our love." And this is the strongest testamony of all.
Gene |
|
|
| January 15, 2008 |
|
|
|
Kathy, in your blog you referenced you said, " It is my fear and observation that much of today's Christian church has become the Pharisees." That has been my exact thought of late.
Gene |
|
|
| April 22, 2008 |
|
|
|
| This is why it is about relationship and not religion! Great message. It really hit home with me. Thanks! |
|
|
| October 17, 2009 |
|
|
|
 [star!] |
Gene... Yellow Gene... This blog is right-on target. Honestly, no one could disagree with anything you've written here. But when we understand who is writing these words, we have to scratch our heads. First of all, we don't know anything about God or Jesus apart from the scriptures. I think we can all agree on that, right? For example, the Holy Spirit brings to our remembrance the words of Jesus but if we've never read the words of Jesus there is no way we can "remember" them. Secondly, you quoted Jesus who told people that the works they were doing in the name of Jesus were, in fact, iniquity. This would indicate that Jesus has some kind of standard, right? I mean, if every person who claimed to worship Jesus were acceptable to Him then He would have no basis for rejecting them in "that day". You wrote: In the end, it’s not how much scripture we know that really matters. It’s really all about the quality of our relationship with Christ. If we don't know anything about Christ apart from the scriptures then certainly some knowledge of the scriptures is important. But as you indicate, it's not what you know but what you do with what you know, right? Furthermore, there were people who lived in the first century who knew and had seen the risen Jesus. They are called apostles. The things they wrote are important to us because without these writings, we have no New Testament scriptures. And without the scriptures we don't know Jesus. My point is this: Not everyone who claims to have a "relationship with Christ" actually has a relationship with Him. Or as Jesus said, 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Obviously, I'm not promoting legalism. Legalism is not doing the things Jesus said to do or believing the things taught by the scriptures. We study the scriptures in order to walk as Jesus did. And without the scriptures, we have no basis for that lifestyle. The expression "bible based" church is important in that it distinguishes itself from the other churches in the neighborhood. Sometimes labels are helpful. There are a thousand non-bible based churches (denominations, religions) but only a few bible-based ones. Obviously, not all churches who call themselves "bible-based" are indeed bible based. Cade_One is a member of the Catholic Church and yet claims that it is "Bible-Based". These are mutually exclusive labels. Given that definition, everything is bible based. The mountains are bible based. The Moon is bible based. The bible talks about "every wind of doctrine" and any church that fits that description, I guess, is bible-based. But that ignores the definition and accepted usage of the words "bible-based". Jesus said, "The words I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life" (Jn. 6:63b) Knowledge of His words - and the words of His apostles - is critically important if one desires life. Jesus said, "If ye continue in my word then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free". Knowing the word of God and continuing therein is essential for freedom. Relationship with Jesus MUST be bible-based or it's a fantasy. Most of the denominational world is walking around in a fantasy world because the Jesus with whom they claim to have relationship is a figment of somebody's imagination. 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. We all have to ask ourselves the question: Does the above scripture verse describe our "bible-based" church / relationship? Rob |
|
|
| October 18, 2009 |
|
|
|
As I wrote in the intro to this blog, "...there is a time to study scripture and get to know Him that way..."
It's the "getting to know Him" part that seems to get lost along the way. It's far too easy to read one line and build a theology that's way out from what is really taught in scripture. That's why studying the whole Bible is important.
Rob, I think that's what you're driving at.
|
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Gene, Amen to that. When I got saved again, I had to reject some of the things that my teachers had taught me in the church of Christ. My understanding of God's word is "out of phase" with the doctrine of the mainline church. Fortunately for me, I have found a group of people with "like precious faith". But if I had never found this group, my doctrine could not be compromised. I know that God is good despite what the mainstream church teaches. I know that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are for me despite their teaching to the contrary. But I have learned some things about God and the kingdom of God that I had never expected to learn. It turns out that Jesus did WAY more than forgive us our sins. I've learned that by His stripes I am healed - physically, mentally, and spiritually. I've learned that His wish "above all things" is that I may prosper and be in health as my soul has prospered. There are ways to interpret the scriptures that steer us in one direction or the other. The faith of the mainstream church of Christ is legal, dry, and lifeless. They have a passion for God but their passion is not based on knowledge. You can read and study the whole bible and still miss the gospel. So studying the bible is vanity and not studying the bible is vanity. The words of Jeremiah the prophet are true, "All is vanity and vexation of the spirit". The words of Jesus are especially true, "Because strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it." It's up to each of us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
| Yes. And that's why we have to turn to the Author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit....so we don't end off in la la land. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
| [star!] |
My understanding when I hear "Bible based church", simply means they are preaching the truth, no more, no less. It has to be said nowadays due to all the heresy out there. So I get what you're saying, but to me, that's what I always think of when someone says "Bible based church". |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
| [star!] |
Gene, I'm thinking that we would hardly know Christ (personally) if we didn't have scripture. Though I agree w/you, "bible-based" could indicate misplaced allegiance (on a book rather than a Person) OR be a misnomer (really Christ-based, scripture as a vehicle). My own pastor uses the expression "high view of scripture", though he is not a rigid inerrantist/literalist.
Interestingly, when I started blogging 2+ years ago, I would have stated w/pride that I was an inerrantist/literalist. However since then I have learned much, AND I have seen a lot of damage as a result of rigid literal interpretations of many passages of scripture. My understanding continues to evolve.... |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
| [star!] |
Gene, good post and discussion here. And it is always interesting to see how folks read the same words but hear something different. My sense regarding labels is that geneally limit, or define a sub-set. Electrical engineers is a sub-set of a group that includes industrial,mechanical, etc. Christian school, low-fat dessert, high-energy drinks, etc. all denote some sub-set or limitation.
Two years ago, we began a ministry and folks wanted to use names like Carpenters for Christ or Christians in Action. My response was those names implied limitations - the first that we only did carpentry type work - the latter, that not all Christians are in action.
When I see bible-based, I see a group that wants to be a sub-set or a niche-player. While well intended and while I readily believe there are good solid Christians at any church that uses such labels, I think they do themselves and others a disservice by adding the label.
One of my personal criteria for considering any label would be to ascertain if there are other entities using the opposite - i.e. are there churches who use labels like the non-bible-based church or the not-grounded-in-truth church. If there are, then the label may be needed. If not, it probably detracts more than adds.
Just another opinion.
Blessings to all,
pa |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Patrick, interesting observation on considering the opposite perspective. I've read the same thing about the first part of a resume, usually entitled "Objective" or "Summary of Qualifications". Statements like "...seeking a challenging position..."
What? Someone's going to say that they're looking for a really boring position? So leave it out.
A street running through town has 7 or 8 Protestant churchs within about 3 miles of each other, all labeled as Bible based. So the label by itself doesn't say much, it doesn't add anything. Saying the opposite (not Bible based) would be ludicrous.
But if they were to say something about how being Bible Based affected or produced or resulted in something, now that's useful information.
The TV church ads that attract my attention are the ones that talk about building up lives through Jesus Christ. They show people reading God's Word, worshiping together, and working together in the community. Those kinds of ads communicate where they are headed. They communicate the "So what" aspect of being Bible Based.
Every group, even churches, need a vision for where they are trying to go or what they are trying to do. To me, "Bible based" communicates the desired end-state....knowing the Bible. But is that the end-state God calls us to? No!
He calls us into a relationship with Him. He knew us before we were born. He wants us to know him.
|
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Another perspective. "Bible-based" may imply there are non-Bible-based churches out there, at least to those calling themselves Bible-based. However, there is a distinction to be made, and it might be one of priority rather than exclusivity. Churches calling themselves "Bible-based" typically make it a priority to study scripture, to seek God through scripture. SOME of these may carry this to an unfortunate extreme, but this is not necessarily the case. There are some VERY loving, humble fellowships out there who seek, and clearly find, Jesus through Bible study. Furthermore, there are indeed many churches nowadays who seek to know Christ through means other than scripture. This is not necessarily bad, depending on the degree to which they do this. But if scripture has been de-emphasized to the point that it's irrelevant, the power of truth within their doors vanishes and such impotent churches look no different than the culture around them. The phrase "Bible-based" can be legitimately used to differentiate certain fellowships from these. However I believe I am in basic agreement that it is unfortunate that any group of believers actually feels it necessary to use "Bible-based" as an adjective for themselves. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Therefore, no label other than a bible-based label is acceptable. The New Testament labels church as follows: "The Way" (Acts 9:2) (This label was only used in reference to the Jewish church), The "church of God" (Acts 20:28), and the "church of Christ" (Rom. 16:16). The scriptures authorize no other labels. The word "church" should imply that the doctrine taught is from the scriptures because the word "church" connotes "Christian". You cannot be a Christian if you are not a "scriptural Christian". In other words, we do not know how to become a Christian apart from the scriptures. I'm a little more hard-line than Mike. Trying to know Christ through means other than scripture is NECESSARILY bad. There is NO DEGREE of seeking to know Christ apart from the scriptures that is anything but pure evil. I'm in a technical field. I am a trained and certified technician. But I know guys in my business who are seeking to know this thing apart from "the book". They seem to have the confidence of an expert but, in practice, they are monkeys at the controls. You don't know computer networking apart from "the book". Christianity is as much a "mind game" as Microsoft networking. You cannot be transformed without the renewing of your mind. But if you claim you can know God apart from what He's revealed about Himself or if what you believe about Him is CONTRARY to what He's revealed about Himself then you are a monkey at the controls - a mere pretender. You have no basis for your faith. Faith cometh by hearing the word of God and without faith it is impossible to please Him. Therefore, in order to claim to know Him apart from the bible, you have to concoct another authority. Enter Roman Catholicism. Catholicism teaches that the scriptures are merely "a way" to know God - not "the way". She teaches that her traditions are just as authoritative as the scriptures. In fact, where her traditions and the scriptures conflict, her tradition wins. Is that the example Jesus gave us? Jesus asked the rhetorical question: "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Mt 15:3) According to Jesus, any tradition that contradicts the commandment of God is error. Jesus also said: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." (Mt 23:9) Every Catholic priest is called "father" yet the Catholic Church has justified herself, claiming that tradition trumps commandment. The Catholic Church has proudly and willingly fallen away from the truth of the scriptures. Seeking to know Christ through means other than scripture is a slippery and treacherous slope. There is no quality control on such a "relationship". There are spirits out there. Many claim that they are a way to God. Without the scriptures, however, there is no road map on the strait and narrow. There is a way which seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof are the ways of death. (Pro. 14:12) Without the scriptures, we're just guessing - and guessing wrong. Rob |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Actually, I would suggest that the Holy Spirit is the quality control on the relationship we have. God first loved us. God gives us the grace we need. God makes Himself available to us.
The Bible educates and it equips, and if we are willing to pray over it, God speaks to us and can change us. In this way we enter into a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ, our savior.
It is in that relationship that many passages of scripture become clear because "...these things are spiritually discerned" |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
You've got to be kidding me. "Call no man your father upon the earth..." is up to interpretation? A moron could understand what Jesus is saying here. You don't have to be a super-spiritual person to understand, "don't do that". How can you imply that people aren't spiritual enough to understand a simple sentence? How is it spiritual to go contrary to God's word? I can't even believe you said that, Gene. The Catholic Church's rebellion is politically based. The "spiritual discernment" that needs to take place is to compare your church with the word of God. If it doesn't line up, leave. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
| Rob, I know many others have already shown you the scriptures where Paul and Jesus refered to others as spiritual fathers, so I won't go over that again with you. It's there for you to review when you want. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Okay. I've reviewed it. Jesus wasn't talking about not calling your dad, father. Read Matthew 23. The context is holy people looking holy and desiring to be called by special titles. Jesus upbraided these hypocrites for dressing in special clothing in order to call attention to their piety. 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, If He were teaching today, Jesus could say, "They dress in robes and special vestments." He's not criticizing them for putting on clothes, He's criticizing them for putting on "religious clothes". Jesus told His disciples not to be called by religious titles. 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren. 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ. The context is "the trappings of religion". Jesus said, "Don't go there, girlfriend". Paul referred to himself as Timothy's father because he was the one who conceived Christ in Timothy. The same thing for the Corinthians and every person Paul converted. He was their father in the faith but nobody ever referred to him as "Father Paul". (As an aside, Abraham was referred to as "Father Abraham" but not in his lifetime. Abraham is "Father Abraham" because he is the father of faith). 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Paul was father to the Corinthians like George Washington is father of this nation. It's not a religious title, it's a statement of fact. To me, Paul is not father but an instructor. My "father" was actually a lady I used to work with. I suppose I could scripturally call her "Father Susan" but that would be ridiculous. I've been down this road a few times, Gene. There's nothing you can say that will nullify the commandment of Jesus to "call no man your father upon the earth". Religious titles are un-Christian. That includes, Reverend, Pastor, Bishop, Father, Master, Rabbi, Cardinal, Pope, etc. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Rob, yes, Christ railed against those who used the term "father" to fuel their own sin of pride. But he later used the term himself . Paul used it several times as did the author of Acts (Luke?)
1CO 4:14 I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.
PHM 1:8 Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order you to do what you ought to do, 9 yet I appeal to you on the basis of love. I then, as Paul--an old man and now also a prisoner of Christ Jesus-- 10 I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains.
AC 4:23 On their release, Peter and John went back to their own people and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices together in prayer to God. "Sovereign Lord," they said, "you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and everything in them. 25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
AC 7:2 To this he replied: "Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham ...
RO 9:10 Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac.
And Jesus said...
LK 16:22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, `Father Abraham,
|
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Rob, if you don't mind, I'd be glad to continue to address questions about Catholicism, but I'd prefer to do that in a different blog.
I'd like for this one to remain focused on the title. If you'd like to start a different one I'll meet you over there. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Fair enough. But I gotta have the last word on this thing. Jesus said, "Call no man your father upon the earth". By this time Abraham, David, Isaac, and the rest of the Old Testament fathers were asleep. They were not "upon the earth". Furthermore, as my previous comment pointed out, I could scripturally call my father in the Lord, "Father Susan" because she was the one who conceived Christ in me. The Father drew me to Jesus through her preaching. Jesus was talking about religious titles not calling your ancestors "father". Paul was the one who begat Christ in the Corinthians. They didn't call him, "Father Paul". Catholic priests are ordained and become "Fathers". Converts don't make them their "fathers", the Church does. Onesimus was the son of Paul because Paul converted him to Jesus while he (Paul) was in prison. 1:10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: There is no scriptural defense for violating the commandment of Jesus - only deceptions. It is devious of you to pull these passages out of the scriptures in order to convince us that Jesus was not serious about what He Himself taught. Religious titles are of the devil - not of God. Any entity that calls itself "church" that does not abide in the doctrine of Christ is not of God but of the devil. 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. And we haven't even TOUCHED the false doctrine of Mary Worship. Let's meet wherever. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Rob, Rob, Rob..., I'm using this first paragraph to respond quickly to your comments and then I will use the remaining on the topic of this post. You said that where there is conflict, regarding Scripture, the Catholic Church's teaching seems to always win. Is that the example Jesus gave us? Well, not exactly, but does Jesus say that where there is conflict [regarding Scripture], one should read their Bibles to interpret what Scripture is saying about itself? What does Sacred Scripture say? Well, we can look at Matthew 18, which deals more with conflict of a sinful nature, but shows that the local, church congregation has an important role when it comes to resolving conflict. And Second Timothy 3:16 tells us "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." Both the teachings of the church (Sacred Tradition) and the Holy Scriptures are very important to the life of Christians. Christ did not tell the apostles to go out and hand out Bibles (which, by the way, was not compiled yet) He relied on the church (the apostles and other believers) to go out into the world and spread the Good News, to baptize, to forgive sins, to heal, and all of these things. And we, as members of Christ's church, are called to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, welcome the estranged, visit the ill and imprisoned, and love our neighbors as Christ loves us. So whether we read this message in the Bible, or from Christ's church, does not change the truth of the matter. Now, about the "Call no man on earth your 'father,' 'master,' or 'teacher'" (Matthew 23). Look at what is said in verses 11 and following, "The greatest among you must be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; but whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Being a Catholic Priest means to humble oneself for Christ and in service of Christ's church. A Priest should not be filled with "self-indulgence" and "self-righteousness" like the scribes and Pharisees. This is the point of this passage.
Back to the main topic... I do not get offended by the term "Bible-Believing" unless it is being used to specifically imply that Catholic Christians do not believe in the teachings of the Bible. In thus case, I view this as ignorance. A co-worker of mine was once told by an ex-Catholic in her Bible Study that "Catholics do not believe in the Bible!" Sadly, this ex-Catholic was ignorant of the faith and probably ignorant of Scripture. St. Jerome said, in his commentary on the book of Isaiah (which the last time I checked is part of the Bible), that "Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ."
The Catholic church is a "Bible-Believing" church, but we are also a "Liturgical" church (as are the Orthodox and some other mainstream Protestant churches). Sacred Scripture plays a very important part of our worship and should also be a very important part of our everyday lives as Christians. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Gene, Thanks for thre response...and interesting you used the resume example. I used to coach folks all the time not to use those types of meaningless terms.
On a different note, I am sad to see yet another post that had insightful dialogue digress once again into a pissin contest...pardon the expression.
My grandmother used to say, "small minds talk about people; average minds talk about events; and great minds challange us all with concepts, ideas and visions'.
Later,
pa |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Cade_One, Honestly, I object to the insinuation that my comments are off-topic. We are talking about bible-based versus Christ based. According to the scriptures, if you are not bible based then you cannot be Christ based. In other words, it's a bad question. If my church were not bible based, I'd leave. I need the truth in my life, not somebody's fantasy. Bible-based means more than paying lip service to "the Holy Scriptures" or "Sacred Scripture". Anyone who places the traditions, liturgy, and commandments of men on par with scripture is trivializing the word of God. One of the words for "Glory" in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word "doxa". Doxa primarily means, "the view, opinion, and judgment" of God. If what I believe is contrary to the scriptures then I need to repent (i.e. change my mind). If my doctrine is contrary to God's view and opinion then God cannot receive "doxa" (glory). Exalting our opinion above the opinion of God is the sin of Adam all over again. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Patrick, What would grandma think of a guy who said, 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. Was Jesus just engaging in a peeing contest with the Pharisees He was blasting? Is Jesus a small minded man? Or was He trying to protect the multitude of people around Him from believing false doctrine? I only do what I see Jesus doing. My words honor God but your words dishonor me. What does that say about you? Rob |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
The difference between Bible based and Christ based is this:
John 5: 39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
Bible study must result in a life dedicated, focused, and lived in and through Jesus Christ. Yet it is too easy to think that an academic knowledge of the Bible will save us. It will not.
Bible study is crucial to the life of anyone who calls themselves Christian for that is how we learn who He is, who we are, and the nature of the relationships between us. But that study must lead to a changed heart allowing for the transforming power of Christ to work in us.
Please, Please, Please. Just think of one little thing your life, no matter how small, and ask God to help you. He loves you, and He will help you. That's what grace is all about.
It is Jesus Christ and Him alone that will save us. No one else, no thing else. |
|
|
| October 19, 2009 |
|
|
|
Amen to that. I agree wholeheartedly with everything you just wrote. I also trust you as a person who has received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You belong to God (Rom. 8:9). This makes you unique in your environment. |
|
|
| October 20, 2009 |
|
|
|
| *Agrees with Gene, then turns his other cheek towards Rob for another slap* |
|
|
| October 20, 2009 |
|
|
|
Rob,
Not sure Grandma ever owned a Bible, as was the case with probably millions of Christians who have been believers since Christ came into this world. And yet I would put her faith and her daily life example of being Christ-like ahead of probably80-90% of the Christians I know today.
Your scripture choice is one I read maybe a little differently. Christ was not being small-minded at all - He was not talking about others, he was talking to others. And He called them out for acting the part without living the part.
I am 100% in favor of constructive dialogue and debate - I think it is another learning tool for most of us. That said, I get discouraged when rather than debating the merits of a topic, the discussion becomes attacks on other Christians, personally or as a group.
If I misinterpreted the several emails between 2 of you, you have my apology. I went back and reread them and maybe there is a fine line between pissing and passion.
Rob, I suspect we have more in common than differences. I left the Catholic church 40+ years ago because I did not agree with some of its teachings. But I have never found a need to attack it. While I left, I will always be grateful for the foundation it provided for my personal journey with Christ.
His Blessings to you all,
pa |
|
|
| October 20, 2009 |
|
|
|
Patrick, I was baptized into Christ when I was 18-years old (going on 19). When were you baptized? Rob |
|
|
| October 20, 2009 |
|
|
|
Guys, please keep comments in scope of this blog title. |
|
|
| October 20, 2009 |
|
|
|
Okay. Patrick, Did you have a bible-based baptism or a Christ based baptism? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Rob |
|
|
| October 20, 2009 |
|
|
|
| Gene, this post is still a great one! |
|
|
| October 20, 2009 |
|
|
|
Rob,
Probably depends on your definitions ;-).
I was baptised in the Catholic church as an infant via proxy. I was confirmed in the Catholic church at age 13 after studying and understanding more of the Catholic faith and learning more about the Bible and Christianity. I spent 2 years in a seminary (24/7, live-in) were typically 2-3 hours per day during the week and 4-6 hours on week-ends were spent on studying scripture. And I was in my mid-forties when I finally figured out that Christianity is more about how one lives their life and less about studying.
Rob, my maybe too simple answer to you and others is that I still read the Bible on occasion when I feel I am being tested by life or circumstances. But I have have also determined that, for me, Christ message was not just about salvation, but about service. I spent the better part of today doing renovations for a lady I hardly know. She is in a bad situation and myself and a couple of others are doing work to restore a trailer that was given to her to allow her to live a more independent life. That is what I do...and I do it for no reason other than His glory.
Am I trying to earn my way to heaven? Nope. Just doing what he commands in 1John3:18 - Let us not show love with words and speeches, but with deeds and actions. Which, btw, I think ties closely to the scripture you quoted earlier from Matthew.
To sum up, I try each day to be Christ-based.
In His Service,
pa
|
|
|
| October 21, 2009 |
|
|
|
| That's awesome Patrick! |
|
|
| October 21, 2009 |
|
|
|
Gene, Apologies for going off-topic here...but I needed to share one more comment.
The lady we are doing work for...she is coming to our church this Sunday! We spent about 4 hours talking today while we continued to work on repairs. She is not particlarly skilled at repairs, but she has been there every day doing what she can. And she has now 'seen first-hand something I want to be a part of'.
Can I get an AMEN!!!?
pa |
|
|
| October 21, 2009 |
|
|
|
Patrick, that's outstanding for both of you.
Amen. |
|
|
Follow this blog
