* If we put it into it’s most precise form, I think most everyone here would believe that someone is saved when they first believe that Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead. (1Cor.15:1-4). The 1 Cor. passage seems to be some early form of church salvation / belief creed.

* I believe we must be very precise when we discuss salvationm, as it is a very important question. So, are some of these new expressions for salvation acceptable / sciptural / heretical? Or should good evangelists have to give a very precise discussion of the elements of salvation, as in 1Cor.15:1-4?

* I would appreciate comment.

Two comments:

1. Using expressions that are not explicitly biblical is not a good idea…

However…

2. The older I get the more amazed I am that grace is bigger than precise formulas/creeds or whatever. Relationships are about more than words. What precise words did you use to propose to your spouse? Sure you said it right? I think you get the point…

* Theory: In the past, it has been “socially acceptable” to be a church member. 50 years ago, someone who professed atheism was looked on, in many circles, as suspicious. There has been a gradual but significant shift in societies views which now makes open atheism much more socially acceptable. The result, many people who attended churches for social reasons, without any real Christian commitment have stopped doing so. I believe that most (though ot all) of the people who have left churches were only “nominal” members, and that there has been growth, rather than shrinkage, in the number of committed Christians in Australia in the last 20 years.

* Well that’s my theory. Anyone want to shoot it down in flames, or produce evidence to support it?

Fewer churches are growing than ever before, but those that are growing are growing larger (the 30 largest aus. congregations that have ever existed are extant today).

They’re either (a) in the metropolitan Bible belts (eg. Castle Hill, Sydney, Blackburn, Melbourne) or (b) large Pentecostal churches which may exist anywhere (except in rural areas) led by competent communicators who’ve got some good music to back ’em up…

There are four other factors – see my homepage 🙂

…..

David Brindley wrote:

**Malachi 3:6 ‘For I am the Lord, I change not;…’

* Sure, that’s what he said THEN. But if you read the OT and NT you must be struck by the change that overcame god. In the OT he is a very demanding, domineering figure. Total obedience no less, is all he craves. Any failure is punished severely. Floods. Plagues. Nuclear Holocausts. Pestilence. God lets no one stand in his way.

The God of both OT and NT is the same God who communicates with love and discipline differently to different peoples…

* Then, the NT ushers in a New Age God,

Not quite: new age gods are ‘create your own identikit god’…

* one who has repented of his vengeful ways and decided that since coercian failed, perhaps love and co-operation would work better. But as long as Christians cling to the OT as aprt of their faith, they must always be concerned that the OT god will leap out of a dark corner and smite them dead.

Christians begin their authority with the words/life of Jesus, and work backwards from there…

* The Authentic Aussie Atheist

* An atheist is a man

they’re all male? Come to think of it I can’t remember an atheist female stirring us here 🙂

* with no invisible means of support.

…..

Definitions: – Exothermic = reaction that gives off heat – Endothermic = reaction that requires heat to continue

A retiring Physical Chemistry professor was setting his last exam for a graduate course in Statistical Thermodynamics.

Being a bit bored with it all, and with a well kept and wry sense of humor, he set a single question on the sheet:

Is Hell endothermic or exothermic? Support your answer with a proof.

He had little idea what to expect, or how to grade the results, but decided to reward any student who was able to come up with a reasonable and consistent reply to his query. One “A” was awarded.

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law or some variant.

The top student however wrote the following:

First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass and occupy space. If they do, then a greater mass of souls has a greater volume.

Further, as volume increases, pressure must decrease in inverse proportion to maintain thermal equillibrium. So, at what rate are souls moving into Hell and at what rate are souls leaving?

I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will never leave. Therefore, all souls stay; no souls are leaving.

As for souls entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to Hell.

With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially, but certainly not indefinitely.

Now, we look at the rate of change in the volume in Hell. Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls to volume must remain constant.

There are then only two possible conditions:

1. One, if Hell is expanding at a slower rate that the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase exponentially until all Hell breaks loose.

2. Conversely, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over; condition two.

We can solve this with the 1990 postulation in the form of a response from Susie LeClair to my invitation for a date: “Not until Hell freezes over!” Since it’s now been over 7 years, and she is not likely to respond in the affirmative, contition two above has not been met. Thus it can be concluded that condition one is true, and therefore Hell is exothermic.

…..

Josh Hunt wrote:

* What do you think? Is Christian living a matter of resolve and trying hard,

Yes: James 4:7b

* or Is it a matter a “Letting go and letting God move in my life”

Yes: James 4:7a

* or, a little bit of both?

Yes: but note the order in James…

…..

Danny wrote:

* Because you are arguing from correlation again. For most of the history of Western Europe, Christianity has been the norm.

This sentence is taken from the thread about Christianity and science, but I couldn’t resist adding the important modifier ‘institutional’ to the word ‘Christianity’. Is there any other sort? Yep, I would hope so.

…..

Robert Dawson wrote:

* Hi.

And hi to you Rob

* I just want to send a couple of different ideas about a topic that is coming pretty close to home at the moment. I just

A minor point to start with: employing the word ‘just’ like this is an interesting modern – mostly Pentecostal – phenomenon. I would encourage my preaching friends to avoid it 🙂

* want to get your views on what legalism actually is. Do you think that it is legalistic to look at values ideas and themes taught in the letters of the new testament, or is this simply using Gods word as intended.

Legalism is saying ‘Go and sin no more’ without _beginning_ with ‘I do not condemn you.’ The first injunction relates to law; the second to love. *If using these passages to rebuke teach and learn is legalism, what are they there for?

The whole of the NT teaches us that love takes precedence over law. But that doesn’t mean law is not important: law is to love what the railway tracks are to the train. It gives direction: but all the propulsive power is in the train (preach it!)

* Should we just throw out the bible and trust the spirit?

They are not in conflict…

* Why did God give us his perfect word (which is where I am coming from) if he doesn’t want us to use it?

I’m not sure I get the meaning of this: but a theological note: ‘God’s Word’ is more than black marks on paper in a book. Sometime, study the dynamic meaning of ‘Word’ ‘Word of the Lord’ etc. in a concordance…

* For that matter if parts of the bible are useless and irrelevant to today what makes Christianity what it is?

Good question. You start with Jesus, God’s perfect revelation, then interpret the rest in the light of Jesus’ life and teachings…

* I mean a big part of the faith that I can profess to have is that God gave us his word, and his son to show us how to live. What happens if this is not truely the case?

* Love, A hurting Christian, Rob

Rob, if you’re hurting, that can be good or bad: your hurt may be the ‘birth-pangs’ to a new understanding or a new dimension of faith…

…..

* rowse wrote:

* How many times have I heard couples say that they ‘just knew’ that they were to get married. They say you will know when it is time.

* What is that? All you married folk…..did you just know? <> Thanks all. Darren

Darren: two questions among others here are to do with the nature of romantic love, and how do you know what God wants you do to (guidance).

There are articles on both these themes on our homepage. A teaser:

ROMANTIC’ AND ‘REALISTIC’ LOVE ARE NOT THE SAME

Remember the song, ‘What the world needs now is love, sweet love?’ It does. But it all depends what you mean by ‘love’.

I am using the term ‘romantic love’ to refer to psycho-sexual attraction; ‘realistic love’ is the strong desire to act towards another for their well-being. Romantic love has a selfish component; realistic love is unselfish. Romantic love is subjective, realistic love is objective. Romantic love is driven by feelings, (which is why we ‘fall in love’), realistic love is a choice of the will. Romantic love is love-responding-to-worth; realistic love is love-before or love-apart-from-worth. Romantic love is ‘circle love’: it presumes a reciprocal loving; true ‘realistic love’ is ‘arc love’: it is love which creates worth in the object, even if the love is not returned. Romance can be addictive; there are self-help groups around the world for ‘romance addicts’. Realistic love is a choice of one’s will. Romantic love happens when a need in me corresponds with a response ‘out there’. Realistic love is a gift.

In romantic love, I respond to what the other is for me. In realistic love I grant the other autonomy and respect – indeed I see them as made in the image of God, and because God loves that person so do I. In romantic love I relate to the other for the good I will derive from the relationship; in realistic love I relate to the other for the good he or she will derive from the loving.

Romantic love is not, repeat not, the basis of a good marriage. It’s nice to have a pretty-coloured car (ask my wife or daughters) but a car is much, much more than its colour. Romantic love is primarily an emotional experience, it can cause irrational behaviour, and can immobilize its ‘victim’. One form of romantic love is ‘infatuation’ (from the Latin infatuare = ‘foolish’).

How does one graduate (yes, that’s the best word) from ‘romantic love’ to ‘realistic love’ in a marriage? First, there must be a commitment by one’s will that the marriage vows were taken seriously: not grudgingly but joyfully. There must be a resolve to act lovingly, to forgive, even when you feel justified in witholding your love. During courtship, romantic love steered the relationship: holding hands, kissing, sharing your life story and your hopes and dreams, a succession of delightful experiences… Now in ‘realistic love’ romance may still play a part (ask: if I were courting him/her now what would we enjoy doing?) but strong, enduring relationships are not forged by romantic love. Experts say you can expect romantic love to last about three years…

[the rest is on my homepage – look under ‘Romance’ ]

…..

* DarrenMichael Smith wrote:

* This is going in never-ending circles.

* Let’s distill it to basics.

* Nigel claims the following: 1. The KJV translation of 1 Cor 14:26 is blatantly different from the original Greek text. 2. That Michael K has been repeatedly made aware of this. 3. That Michael K’s continued use of a passage which he knows is mistranslated is dishonesty.

* Looking at some English Translations of 1 Cor 14:26:

* KJV How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

* NIV What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.

* NASB What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a *teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification

* RSV What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

* DARBY What is it then, brethren? whenever ye come together, each [of you] has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done to edification.

* YLT What then is it, brethren? whenever ye may come together, each of you hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation? let all things be for building up;

* Now as Nigel reads Greek and neither Michael K nor I do, it is fairly hard to dispute point 1. with him.

* However I believe other a.r.c contributors (such as Rowland, Andrew and Patrick) do understand Greek, so can probably comment with more authority.

* So the question is: from the Greek text, could one reasonably say that the KJV translation is accurate? Could one reasonably interpret it to support Michael K’s view that every Christian is able to speak in tongues? Ignoring (for the moment) opinions of whether Michael K’s interpretation is correct, simply “could the Greek reasonably be read that way?”

Short answer: Nigel’s right…

If there isn’t time for Nigel’s suggestion about going to a Bible College to learn Greek, begin by getting a pastor who’s studied Greek to give you a crash course – particularly in the use of a Greek lexicon…

…..

* Patrick Canion wrote:

**Rowland Croucher < wrote:

** Patrick: do yourself a favour, go without a McDonald’s or two and buy an NRSV: the Bible Society in Perth will have some inexpensive editions 🙂

* Steady on Rowland….when he said to deny yourself, I’m sure the good Lord didn’t mean that I had to miss out on my Big Mac! I mean, sacrifice is one thing, but that’s ridiculous!! 🙂

Not really – the more Big Macs the earlier you’ll meet the Lord… 🙂

…..

* Gordon Coleman wrote:

* Just further to this whole debate:<>

To respond just to this para…

* I’m interested to get some different ideas about how others view Bible translations that use “gender-inclusive” language. Do you think it’s necessary or appropriate?

Yes and yes…

* (And if so, do we do the same with the writings, in English, of Christians who wrote in different times?)

Yes: I’ve edited seven books replete with quotes from authors from different eras, and unless the sexism/antiquated language should be kept for literary/poetic reasons I’ve edited it a little. This is common practice for modern editions of Shakespeare, Chaucer etc. etc.

* How far do you go? Does God become Our Father/Mother in heaven, in Mt 6?

I’d personally work on putting more content into the notion of ‘father’…

* Does God become he/she, or it?

I’m trying to use the word ‘God’ as gender-nonspecific. (I hate ‘Godself’ however)…

* Some may accuse me of being facetious here, but I’m not. I would just like to know, from any who advocate gender-inclusive translation, what limits they set on reinterpretation of the original text.

Reinterpretation is not at issue; re-translation yes…

* Gail Pratley wrote:

** Marcelo Cantos in reply to: (Gail Pratley) writes:

** In Spanish there are almost no gender-neutral terms, in or outside the church, and no-one is bothered by it. Everyone understands that the male is used when referring to mixed or indeterminate sexes. Why is this such an issue?

* 1. This is not Spain. 2. The original question raised by Rowland was along the lines of “Do the women who read this newsgroup fell left out if the male gender only is used when referring to all people?” My answer was that I find it slightly annoying. 3. The issue is that non-gender-specific language has been around for years – it has become part of our culture, if you like. Those who work in education, welfare or law, for example, cannot get away with using terms such as ‘mankind’, or using the male pronoun if referring to both sexes. The reason is that use of these terms discriminate against woman. If you use ‘he’ then you leave out ‘she’! Quite simple really. (And why should we be left out?) I made the observation that the church has been a bit slow in catching up to the rest of the community … some churches, that is – not all. 4. Just an aside: anyone doing a diploma or degree in theology must use NGS language too.

And, incidentally, even conservative Christian newsmagazines/papers in Oz now generally use non-sexist language. Problem is with many of our hymns/ songs…

Gail expresses her point of view (held by about 98% of educated adult women these days) better than this mere male can, but I like the reasons in the new Anglican Prayer Book for using inclusive language – it’s a matter of courtesy and justice…

Michael, if I may make a gentle comment here: you’re digging a deep hole for yourself. File your posts and read them in ten years’ time: it will be a good experience in humility 🙂

Reminds me of the movement away from thee’s thou’s and would’st’s in our praying a generation ago. For those of you old enough to remember: weren’t there some quaint rationales given for keeping Jacobean/Elizabethan English when talking to God then 🙂

…..

* Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:

** Chris Ho-Stuart < wrote:

** I cringe when I read these comments on the pharisees. They have most unfairly become a symbol of hypocrisy and callous legalism. The picture of the pharisees presented in the New Testament is almost certainly a distortion.

* You are entirely correct, Chris. In my previous post I probably should have made it clearer that I was referring to the Pharisees *as presented in the New testament* rather than the Pharisees as they really were.

Which is the way I’d phrase it too…

* They were very careful to take the whole scriptures seriously, ironing out any apparent contradictions, and teaching their followers to ‘put fences around the Torah’ – ie. to be very careful to keep the spirit, as well as the letter of the law, and not to do anything which might lead to inadvertanly breaking a commandment.

My problem with pharisaism ancient and modern is that this process leads to ‘becoming wiser than God’ – clarifying what may have been left a little open-ended…

* Quite true. The language Jesus is quoted as using against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 and John 8 (hypocrites, blind guides, whitewashed sepulchres, children of the devil etc.) would do Steve Winter proud.

Ah, but it’s not a matter so much of what is said, but who has the authority to say what…

* If you study the teaching of the Pharisees, they closely resemble Christian teaching in so many respects that it is truly remarkable. The scholarly consensus, which will not please everybody, is that BECAUSE the Pharisees and the early Church were so similar, the authors of the Gospels found it neccesary to express Jesus’ response to the Pharisees in such hateful terms. They wanted peole to make a clear choice, and so they accentuated the differences and downplayed the similarities.

I’ve read some of the scholars here, such as Raymond Brown et. al. and they leave me unconvinced on some of this: mainly for reasons of social anthropology (to do with the integrity of the transmission of words and ideas in a predominantly non-literate culture) and psychology (I’ve met many modern pharisees/legalists and can understand Jesus’ anger with them)…

* In the modern world, I would like to hope that we do have the maturity and common sense to acknowledge what they have done, undo it, and frankly acknowledge the harm that has been done by Christians to Jews because of these words.

Right – more by our mishandling of John rather than Matthew in this case…

….. * Craig Hoskin wrote:

** Robert Dawson wrote in article <

** What would you seeing as being the most important quality for a church leader (i.e. Pastor, priest, reverend whatever) to have?

* Thick skin and huge ears ? Aside from that the more required qualities are listed in the bible: eg 1Tim 3

Agree with both of the above statements (skin of a rhinoceros and heart of a deer is another way of putting it)

plus

* a sense of humor

* a teachable spirit

Robert Dawson wrote:

* What do you think should be done if at least one of these qualities is found sorely lacking in a Pastor?

Depends (a) which one and (b) what authority you have in your church.

If a member of the Board/parish council, you’ll probably want to talk to one of your fellow leaders. If not, choose the wisest and share your concerns.

Oh, and one more thing. The relationship of pastor and church is, I believe, a ‘for better for worse’ kind of thing… In many cases your pastor’s gifts or lack of them can be supplemented by those of others…

* Seth M. Bartal wrote:

* I think that a church leader such as a pastor needs to have his life in order. I think he needs to be a good father

(My wife’s a pastor – and is a good mother)

* (if he has children) and also someone who is easy to talk to about your problems. I think a good pastor should practice what he preaches. He should not only talk the talk but also walk the walk.

Seth, I think you told us you were young. Don’t repeat preachers’ silly cliches like this, eh 🙂

* A good pastor needs to convey the message saving power of Christ to any and all who want to hear the “good news”. He needs to have integrity, wisdom, and vision for the church he’s directing and not only watch the activities going on, but also participate. He needs to be involved with the youth and help the youth group to grow. But most of all, he needs to be a friend who anyone feels comforatable to talk with and take counsel from. He truly needs to be a man of God who knows Jesus Christ as his own personal Lord and Savior.

No problems with any of this except for the sexism…

…..

* Patrick Canion wrote:

*Yet you claim that “ALL” 3000 in Acts 2:41 spoke in tongues, even though the Bible doesn’t say so… sounds like a bit of “conjecturising”

(the technical word is ‘eisegesis’: reading back into the Bible from a current idea/experience, something that wasn’t explicitly there 🙂

…..

* Craig Hoskin wrote:

** Rowland Croucher < wrote in article Tongues-speakers have _less_ light than other Christians, in my experience. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could combine light _and_ heat!

* Without the inference …. what EXACTLY are you trying to say?

I’m trying to say that the Holy Spirit operates in our minds, to enlighten us with God’s truth, and in our hearts/emotions/wills, to give us power/fervour/joy etc.

Christian groups that emphasize truth/orthodoxy are often not very joyful; and those that emphasize _experience_ sometimes needs to do more hard work thinking through their faith.

* HTHreg Noone wrote:

** Rowland Croucher writes:

** Tongues = enlightenment? As a counselor of tongues-speakers (and as one myself) I’d say tongues has NOTHING (pardon the shouting) to do with light. Heat, maybe, but not light. OK: you’ve forced me to state publicly something I’ve not said before: Tongues-speakers have _less_ light than other Christians, in my experience.

* Interesting. Doesn’t the HS “manifest” as a [cool] gentle breeze?

Only to Elijah and in a popular hymn 🙂

* I am really worried about all this heat stuff. Basically, stress and friction (and many other “things”) produce heat…when one is at peace in the spirit, the feeling of heat does not spring to mind.

Which is why Christian mystics aren’t into tongues very often…

* In any case, if “tongues-speakers have less light than other Christians”, what is this _really_ saying about “tongues”? If it really is the HS manifesting in them, then how can this be possibly so? Unless, of course, it’s not really the HS flowing thru them…

Could be: but many thoughtful Pentecostal leaders tell me an emphasis on tongues is a sign of immaturity… …..

* Rodney Reynolds wrote:

* Firstly I would like to say that the “Rev” Steve Winter is expressing extraodinary hate for a christian. He seems to be a very unsettled person for a “Rev”

My left-field question has to do with psychology rather than theology/ exegesis:

Why wouldn’t someone with ‘Rev.’ in front of their name experience varying degrees of unsettledness? My hunch is that people like Elijah, Paul etc. not to mention some of the odd-bod saints in the history of the church weren’t altogether ‘settled’ sometimes. (Look up Jeremiah’s interesting aside about ‘settled’ people in a concordance – then check out a commentary to find the meaning :-)…

I talk to Rev’s every day – they are often unsettled. If they weren’t sometimes, I’d be worried…

But then Steve hasn’t told us about the origins of his Rev. so we don’t know

(a) whether he’s included and

(b) whether the unsettledness I’m talking about has any reference to him.

My hunch as a counselor-of-clergy is that SW is in a special category 🙂

Oh, another thing: is 1 Peter 3:16 – about treating your enquirers/ detractors with ‘reverence/respect’ (see the various renderings in different translations) – the only time in the Scriptures we are exhorted to treat others in the same way we treat God? If so, it says something to both SW and his detractors about how we should be behaving towards each other, eh? (Here endeth that lesson 🙂

…..

Someone on this newsgroup raised the issue last week: Can Christians really regard unity and diversity as other than oxymoronic?

(BTW Only sectarians would ever ask such a question 🙂

Here’s a little meditation I wrote on this…

ACCEPTING DIVERSITY

Galatians 3:10, GNB; James 2:17, GNB; Romans 12:4-5, GNB; 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, 18-20, GNB; 1 Corinthians 13:12-13, GNB; Romans 14:13 and 19, GNB; John 13:34-35, GNB; Romans 15:7, GNB; 1 Peter 4:8-10, NEB.

Snoopy was typing a manuscript, up on his kennel. Charlie Brown: ‘What are you doing Snoopy?’ Snoopy: ‘Writing a book about theology.’ Charlie Brown: ‘Good grief. What’s its title?’ Snoopy (thoughtfully): ‘Have You Ever Considered You Might Be Wrong?’

This points up a central Christian dictum: God’s truth is very much bigger than our little systems… (For the rest, look under ‘Diversity’)…

* Rowland, are we talking about diversity in God’s truth & message,

Yes and no. God’s truth is eternal/infinite/beyond our comprehension, so God reveals that truth selectively/partially at different times to different peoples. We are therefore talking about diversity in our limited _understandings_ of it. Remember Kipling’s parable about the elephant and the blind Indians – one thought the elephant was like a tree (he could only feel the leg) etc. etc.

(One of my favorite questions to my charismatic/pentecostal friends: would you, like James, write a whole epistle and not even mention the Holy Spirit?)

Problem for sectarians is that God’s truth = their limited understanding of it, which is a form of idolatry to say nothing of error and arrogance…

or diversity in worship

Yes – there are four major classifications of biblical – and modern – modes of worship. Now, homework for you (or anyone else here): what are they?

…..

* Robert wrote:

* Does anyone know if revival is happening anywhere in the world other than Argentina Pensicola Torono Britain South Korea

* Can you provide specifics eg where exactly; nature of revival?; testimonies etc

Revival happens wherever God’s people are ‘revived’.

So the correct answer is: pretty-well everywhere.

What you’re probably asking is: where are there certain ‘accompanying manifestations’ (like the Pensacola/Toronto blessing) on a major scale throughout the world?

Now that’s an interesting question, and in terms of the TB you’ve got to wonder why there’s no major manifestation of that among black peoples, so far as I know…