Is There One Blueprint for the Church?
Apr 15
This is more of an inquiry than a specific position on something. The question is this, is there a specific blueprint for the church scattered?
I ask this in light of a conversation I had the other day on Facebook. A dear brother brought up the fact that in the midst of the conversation we had missed what was most important that is the fact that Christ designed His church and wanted it to function a certain way. Much like in the OT God was to be worshipped a certain way and to go against that blueprint lead to some very dire consequences for those in charge of the worship and for others who took God’s holiness lightly.
So again I ask, is there a specific blueprint. I am going to attempt to share what I think in light of all I have understood and read, my experiences and ultimately what the New Testament says itself.
I went from being raised in a Baptist church, to being saved in an Apostolic Pentecostal church, to then being rededicated in a Seventh Day Adventist Apostolic Holiness Church (yep), to becoming a 5 percenter/Pseudo Muslim, back to some type of Christian/Deist to a rededication in a Word of Faith church to embracing Neo-Calvinism, to a Simple/House Church ecclesiology to where I am today (which I have no dedicated label 
).
This journey has taken me over an array of backgrounds. Socially, Economically, Theologically, and Ecclesiologically. Each group was just as diverse as the one before. Each group had its hobby horse, each group (well minus the Muslim thing) felt they had God’s blueprint for the church and theology nailed down and each group was entirely different yet unified that Jesus had raised from the dead. Now again, what each though about faith, Christology, Soteriology, Eschatology and so forth were light years apart but one thing I can say is that each group was fueled and fill with passion and each group as far as I can tell really loved Jesus.
None of them interpreted the bible the same, each would come to the same text and I would most likely come with 5 different interpretations. Each thought different about leadership in the church, each thought differently about what women were allowed to do, each thought different on giving, shoot for the most part they didn’t agree on much, but again the resurrection seemed to be one unifying point.
I can be honest and say that I am sum product of their beliefs and while I was passionate and fully convinced each were right while I was involved I can see that there were areas they missed or at least I think they missed. Something that is funny is that each points the finger at the next and says how wrong each one is (maybe I should try Catholicism next???). The passion burning in each to do this thing right because it was there life’s commitment is actually to be applauded though again I will say such passion blinds, I am glad to see people passionate about Jesus.
That leads me to the New Testament. I want to say this humbly but I want to say it. As I scour the horizon of what is labeled the New Testament, I come away with one surety that is that the New Testament itself does not have one unifying position on what the church should look like. There are elements that I see in common but even within the churches planted by the Apostle Paul I would believe there was huge diversity. I believe in some areas women were probably heavily involved and others were not. I believe in some there were multiple leaders in some maybe one. I also believe that Jesus left us with such ambiguity. I believe there is a purpose to this.
In John 3, Jesus talks about how God will no longer be worshipped in a place. “Not this mountain or any other mountain” He tells the young woman who is face to face with God. The locale and details were becoming irrelevant. Worship should have always been a purpose and the temporary Temple in Israel was to show our utter inability to earn God’s favor or even to worship Him, unless of course He reduces Himself and allows access.
The plan of God was the same plan when He created the earth and us. His plan was to walk with us, not us come to Him. Not for us to make special places of worship but make a person (Himself) special to be worshipped. We see that the Jews quickly became more interested in the location and not the person. The temple itself became important not the glory that filled the temple when God arrived. But even with that God never intended to come and leave, come and leave, I believe the Earth was going to be place where He dwelled in harmony with His creation but as we know sin interrupted that.
I say all of that to say this. Where and how may not be as important as we think. The who is the only thing worth something. God has not taken residence in each of us so our humble obedience to His voice is now our compass of worship. This means that we have liberty to erect nice buildings for many of us to come together, or a few of us to meet in a coffee shop. This means that two families are perfectly fine to be considered a church or the mega-church which seats 30,ooo is just as sufficient. This is because the location and method was never important the person was. We easily and quickly lose focus when method is pushed up and if you don’t believe me we only need to look at the constant and perpetual divide over the last 2000 years.
Spirit and truth are the only. And that spirit has been given to us and truth is a person not a list of principles. We have been set free from the law and the new law is love and Jesus says “love God and love your neighbor” this is the New Covenant law. Not rules and list and principles but a person who loves us enough to take residence in us to help us understand Him more.
I am often embarrassed by my past actions and sharp division and constant bickering when all I should have been focusing on is a person. Thanks for reading if you have made it this far.
Interesting question. It seems that we have three choices:
1. God had no specific plan — either he does not care what we do or leaves it up to our times, culture and situation. Most evangelicals practice this, even if they claim to be “biblical”. What most of us do may not follow a biblical model of any type, but that does not mean our practice is “un-biblical.” Most seem to more closely follow Old Testament worship ideas and regulations than what is seen in the early New Testament church.
2. Some feel that there is a definite biblical model and feel that the smaller, tighter community with usually a non-clerical stance is what Paul (speaking for God) wants of all of us. Any other practice in “unbiblical” and seriously lacking. This is seen more in the cell church groups.
3. Maybe there are principles from number two, namely a need for strong emphasis on community, loving interaction and a greater implementation of the “one another” ministries, but using what format generally fits culture, tradition and times of number one.
Lionel,
I know that you may not be interested in further study of scripture as it pertains to the person (identity) of Jesus Christ. For you may already be fully convinced in your mind that Jesus is co equal and co eternal with God. However, you may want to revisit this doctrine with further study. You may not change your view, but you should be able to adequately defend your view in light of differences of opinion.
Now on to your statements that seem to make scriptures contradict.
You stated:
“He tells the young woman who is face to face with God”
My response:
Jesus says that know one has seen God. So how is this young woman face to face with God?
You also stated:
“Worship should have always been a purpose and the temporary Temple in Israel was to show our utter inability to earn God’s favor or even to worship Him, unless of course He reduces Himself and allows access.”
My response:
God cannot cease being all powerful and all knowing. He cannot be reduced in any way. He is the same yesterday, today, and forevermore. Scriptures say that the man Jesus is the mediator between God and man. Not Jesus is the mediator between man and himself (makes no sense and seems to be nonbiblical). I believe if you reexamine the whole “trinity” teaching that you may have a change in view like you have been having on so many other subjects that you previously were so dogmatic on.
I believe I provided plenty of insight and questions on a previous post with you regarding Jesus and the “Holy Spirit”. Please revist my comments and PLEASE address where I may be wrong in my understanding. Or ignore me in your pride because it is beneath you to engage in such a discussion.(Hopefully that is not the case)
Lionel,
Great thoughts! Your honesty is something I have rarely encountered. How I love to read thinking Christians who are prepared to question and diligently seek answers.
“And that spirit has been given to us and truth is a person” , the New Covenant person, God revealed to man.
Jon Paden,
I was a oneness Pentecostal for 7 years before I embraced the Trinity. In 2000-2001 I flirted with the Jehovah Witness who embrace your view of Christ. However, the scriptures seem to be clear that Jesus is God and since I can not embrace polytheism the Trinity is my only Spiritual and Intellectual answer. Hebrews 1, Colossians 1 and Philippians 2 among the entire Gospel of John talks about Jesus in a way that makes Him divine. Any lesser view of Him makes Him something less than God but greater than the angels any more of Him makes one question the validity of anything Paul says.
So you have to stop with the “if you studied carefully” that seems to be a techinque you employ. You may should ask “did you study this”. And my answer is “yes”. The writers of scripture thinks so at least and many of them knew Him personally.
Just to note in John 1, John writes “and He tabernacled among us” this is a direct reference to how God moved in and through Israel. There are many others but if you are convinced that is fine and again this post has nothing to do with who Jesus is.
Aussie J,
Thanks a bunch Sir. Just wrestling not really answering. I really want to understand this and honor Christ.
Noel,
I agree, what do you think. This is what I tried to convey in the post, I would probably be a number 3 guy but have flirted with number 2 more often over the last 2 years.
Lionel,
Thanks for responding. I don’t agree with all of the Jehovohs witness beliefs on Jesus, just some of them.
You wrongly stated:
“So you have to stop with the “if you studied carefully” that seems to be a techinque you employ. You may should ask “did you study this”.
My response:
I never said that. This is what I wrote:
“However, you may want to revisit this doctrine with further study.” “I believe if you REEXAMINE the whole “trinity” teaching that you may have a change in view… ”
Notice that I said that you MAY want to REVISIT this doctrine with FURTHER STUDY and thay you may want to REEXAMINE. The reason why I said this was because of your repones to my previous comments on this subject. And also because of your lack of response to many of those same comments just like you are doing again.
You stated:
“However, the scriptures seem to be clear that Jesus is God and since I can not embrace polytheism the Trinity is my only Spiritual and Intellectual answer”
My reponse:
I could just as easily say that scriptures clearly speak of Jesus as a man, the son of God, and not God. Jesus himself speaks of himself as the son of God and not God.
I have given you plenty of apparent problems with your current understanding on the “trinity”. You continue to ignore all of this or simply refuse or cannot provide a response.
Jon,
My apologies for the oversight. The scriptures do teach that Jesus is the Son of God the problem is that you believe that one somehow makes the other null and void and that is where we disagree. Again let me ask you how do you deal with Hebrews 1. I don’t have to prove that He is the Son of God I already agree there, neither do I have to prove He is a man, He was crucified, but the problem is you can’t say that He is not God because the scriptures clearly says that He is. So either we have a clear contradiction in scripture or the trinity is right.
Lionel, Lionel, Lionel,
You stated:
“but the problem is you can’t say that He is not God because the scriptures clearly says that He is. So either we have a clear contradiction in scripture or the trinity is right.”
My response:
You keep throwing out these statements as if they are fact and that it is clearly stated in the bible. Where is it clearly stated in the bible that Jesus is God? It does SEEM to clearly state that Jesus is not God based on several scriptures that you still want address. Also, how does Jesus being God make the trinity doctrine right. Trinity involves a third person “the Holy Spirit” which is another subject that I recently brought up in which you again refuse to address my objections. This has been a constant theme with you regarding subjects that I have brought up in the past. This is how it usually goes. You ask me a question(s) and I respond to all of them. Then I ask you some questions and you may address a few but a good 80% or more of my questions go unanswered with you. Then you turn around and ask me the exact same questions again. That is why I made this statement previously:
“Please revist my comments and PLEASE address where I may be wrong in my understanding. Or ignore me in your pride because it is beneath you to engage in such a discussion.(Hopefully that is not the case)”
You stated:
“Again let me ask you how do you deal with Hebrews 1″
My response:
Why are you asking me the same question again? I already addressed this in detail and you again failed to respond. However, I will copy and past my previous answer on this post for you to read or ignore again.
http://www.lionelwoods.net/2010/03/the-carrot-and-stick-gospel-when-grace-is-not-enough/#comments
“That Christ is an “heir” is inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine, which states that Christ is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If Christ were God, then he was part owner all along, and thus is not the “heir” at all. These verses teach that God is the original owner, and will give all things to His heir, Jesus Christ. It is obvious from the wording of these first two verses that the author of Hebrews does not consider Christ to be God.
Furthermore, the entire opening section of Hebrews, usually used to show that Christ is God, actually shows just the opposite. More proof of this is in verses 3 and 4. After Christ sat down at the right hand of God, “he became as much superior to the angels” as his name is superior to theirs. “God” has always been superior to the angels. If Christ only became superior after his resurrection, then he cannot be the eternal God. It is obvious from this section of Scripture that “the Man” Christ Jesus was given all authority and made Lord and Christ.
Since aionas means “ages” and not “world,” it is fair to ask in what sense God has made the ages through Jesus. First, it must be understood that the word “made” is extremely flexible. It is the Greek word poieo, which, both alone and in combination with other words, is translated more than 100 different ways in the NIV, and thus has a wide range of meaning. Some of the ways poieo is translated are: accomplish, acted, appointed, are, be, bear, began, been, bring, carry out, cause, committed, consider, do, earned, exercise, formed, gain, give, judge, kept, made, obey, performed, preparing, produce, provide, put into practice, reached, spend, stayed, treated, was, win, work, wrote, and yielded. Although most people read poieo in Hebrews 1:2 as referring to the original creation, it does not have to mean that at all. The context dictates that the “ages” being referred to are the ages after Christ’s resurrection. In verse 2, Christ became heir after his resurrection. In verse 3, he then sat at God’s right hand after his resurrection. Verses 5 and 6 also refer to the resurrection. The context makes it clear that God was not speaking through His Son in the past, but that He has spoken “in these last days” through His Son, and “given form to” the ages through him”
Jon,
Read this an explain it for me:
3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
Please explain how Jesus can be the “exact imprint of his nature”.
Let me ask another question. Is Jesus currently: Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent? If not I got a few scriptures including the one above for you to explain and if so, that means He is some type of mini-deity and you really are polythesitic.
Lionel and others,
I know I’m a bit late in joining this wonderful conversation.
Lionel, now you need to try a Presbyterian flavor of church.
At any rate, in a way, you’ve got a type of perspective that the rest of us are deprived of. You’ve experienced a lot, noticeably in the areas of theology and ecclesiology.
Regarding a blueprint for the church, this matter really comes back to ecclesiology more than anything else.
I do agree that a blueprint doesn’t just emerge from the pages of the NT. Frankly, I really don’t think one is there. That’s why I have a problem with organized religion. Often in these churches the Spirit of the NT is stifled.
I’m with you, but as a Southern Baptist, not with an array of varying denominational baggage.
T.C,
Man I looked on line and said naaaahhhh!
Three of my favorite theologians are Presbys though. Ferguson, Dale Davis and Sproul.
Jon, you are heavily obsessed in proving that Jesus isn’t God, to where it appears as if you’re willing to interrupt any old post, in order to put forth that obsession. Regardless of whatever you think or believe, but have you ever thought about discretion, and the fact that just because you have a right to do something, or express something, doesn’t always make it the right thing to do-regardless of what you’re peddling.
It’s like me talking about giving to the poor, and the importance of giving to the poor, because I’m abiding by the teachings of my Lord and Savior Jesus, only for some dogmatic fool to come along and distract from the main import of my message-which was dealing with the poor-only to try and prove to me that Jesus wasn’t God, or that he was a myth.
On the same token, I notice that white racists, or borderline white racists, will use this tactic, when it comes to black websites or issues on these sites, where black folks are dealing with themselves, even if white folks aren’t mentioned-by inserting race into the discussion, while at the same time claiming that black folks are racially obsessed. Black folks who are religious tend to do the same thing, as it relates to their inserting their dogmatic doctrinal stands, and religious beliefs, whether they are christian or not, or whether it’s warranted or not.
Why don’t you just chill on the attacks, and jump on a post that is apropos to the type of discussion you want to engage in, while allowing certain lessons to marinate, which is far more important at the present time, than what you want to discuss? You disrupt and change the course of potential knowledge and wisdom, because you are offended that folks don’t align with your thinking.
I think its pathetic bruh, and you ought to check yourself on that.
I personally don’t believe in Calvinism; think Calvin was a stone cold hearted religious Pharisee who shuts up the Kingdom of Heaven from men, and was a murderer; Jonathan Edwards was a racist slaveowner; Luther and anti-semite; and black reformed (especially those who don’t believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts) folks within the same league as I do other black folks, who seek out religious experiences or belief systems, that supposedly makes sense of their oppression, their special relationship with God that other folks don’t have (i.e. “chosen one” syndrome), or whatnot-but I don’t have to bring that up every time I hit this site. I only do so when it’s appropriate, and when the conversation is somewhere around the corner, because my main intent isn’t to bash folks over the head because I’m offended by a particular belief they hold, but to broaden my horizons and learn something that can allow me to think a second time.
The last paragraph should’ve read this way:
I personally don’t believe in Calvinism; think Calvin was a stone cold hearted religious Pharisee who shuts up the Kingdom of Heaven from men, and was a murderer; Jonathan Edwards was a racist slaveowner; Luther an anti-semite; place black reformed (especially those who don’t believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts) folks within the same league as I do other black folks, who seek out religious experiences or belief systems, that supposedly makes sense of their oppression, and explains their alleged special relationship with God that other folks don’t have (i.e. “chosen one” syndrome), or whatnot-but I don’t have to bring that up every time I hit this site. I only do so when it’s appropriate, and when the conversation is somewhere around the corner, because my main intent isn’t to bash folks over the head because I’m offended by a particular belief they hold, but to broaden my horizons and learn something that can allow me to think a second time.
Seekerman,
“Jon, you are heavily obsessed in proving that Jesus isn’t God, to where it appears as if you’re willing to interrupt any old post, in order to put forth that obsession.”
My response:
What are you talking about? I only have mentioned this on two post. The reason I brought it up on this post was addressed in my first comment. You’ve seemed to have wasted a lot of your time with your last comment towards me for it was not warranted. Furthermore, you nor does anyone else have to engage in the discussion that WAS ADDRESSED TO LIONEL. In other words, maybe you should mind your own.
Lionel-
Great insights! I cannot clearly see in the NT Scriptures where there is a blueprint for the church other than the foundation is the apostles and the prophets, the Cornerstone is Christ, and the building materials are the followers of Christ who believe in his death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and second coming and obey what is commanded of them (See 1 Peter 2 and Ephesians 2)
Lionel,
“Exact imprint of His nature”
This simply means that Jesus, in his oness with the Father, is an exact expression of the character or qualities of God (rightousness,mercy, love, etc.) because he obeyed God in all things. We are to become like him in oneness with him and the Father and become joint heirs with him if we indeed suffer with him (suffering the cruxifiction of the flesh daily by living in obedience to God).
This scripture does not seem to say that Jesus is God in anyway.
Is Jesus Omniscient- No. Jesus said that he does not know all things. For the Father is the only one who Jesus claims knows all things.
Omnipotent- No. Jesus said that the Father is greater than him and that he is subject to Him, and has derived ALL OF HIS POWER from God the Father.
Omnipresent – Maybe. I don’t know the extent of the power that has been granted to him by God.
Here again I’ve addressed all of your questions. Will you address some more of the things that I’ve asked you?
Yes Jon I will, one more thing can you answer Romans 9:5? Then I promise to answer your questions. Can you list them in one comment please?
BTW,
Jon, how did you come to that conlusion from “exact imprint” can you please post the greek definitions here please. Thanks.
Jon,
Shoot I forgot to add, the scriptures say that Jesus is the exact imprint can you show me a text that says we are to aspire for the same?
Lionel,
Commentary on Rom 9:5
First off, the original text had no punctuation, and thus in some instances there is more than one way a verse can be translated without violating the grammar of the text. Romans 9:5 is one of the verses that can be translated different ways, and thus the context and scope of Scripture will help us determine the correct interpretation. Note from the examples below that translators and translating committees vary greatly in their handling of Romans 9:5:
(Young’s Literal) – whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed to the ages. Amen.
RSV: “to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen.”
Moffatt: “the patriarchs are theirs, and theirs too (so far as natural descent goes) is the Christ. (Blessed for evermore be the God who is over all! Amen.)”
KJV: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
NAS: “whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.”
NIV: “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.”
Although the exact wording of the above translations differs, they fall into two basic categories: those that are worded to make Christ into God, and those that make the final phrase into a type of eulogy or doxology referring to God the Father. There is good evidence from both the immediate remote contexts that the last phrase of this verse is a eulogy or doxology to God the Father. “God over all” and “God blessed forever” are both used of God the Father elsewhere in the New Testament (Rom. 1:25; 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 4:6; 1 Tim. 6:15). In contrast, neither phrase is ever used of Christ. It would be highly unusual to take eulogies that were commonly used of God and, abruptly and without comment or explanation, apply them to Christ.
You asked:
how did you come to that conlusion from “exact imprint” can you please post the greek definitions here please.
“exact imprint or exact image”
imprint/image – (based on Strong’s Concordance) greek = charakter or character – an exact copy or representation of something else. In this case a copy or representative of the invisible God. This clearly states that Jesus is not God but a representative and image of God nature or character.
Gen 1:26 also uses the terms likeness and image as it concerns man. Jesus is the second man and we are to be conformed to his image. Why? Because he has been conformed to God’s image as all men were created to eventually become through him.
You asked:
…can you show me a text that says we are to aspire for the same?
Phil 2:5
I Cor 2:16
Rom 8:29
John 15:9 & 10
John 17:21-23
Col 3:1-4
Rom 8:14-17
Lionel,
Some of my questions to you are:
1) Why is God the Father never spoken of as having a God yet Jesus has a God and prays to Him?
2) God the Father never was given His power and authority yet we read that Christ was given his by the Father. So how can Christ be co equal with God but yet not have power and authority on his own?
3) How is Christ like us in every way if He is fully God and human? We are not fully God and fully human.
4) Are we going to be joint heirs with God?
5) How can God be an heir of anything? Everything is already His.
6) Can we be BRETHREN with God or SONS of God like Christ? For Jesus is spoken of as the firstborn of many brethren (God has no brothers and was never born in any way)
7) How can God be tempted? The scriptures say that the man Jesus was tempted in every way as us.
9) Was God ever lower than the angels?
10) Was God made or created by someone else?
11) Does God not know all things at certain times? Is He able to lose knowledge and power?
Jon
I think seekerman made a reasonable point in a reasonable manner – don’t quite get your point abouting it being a private conversation on a public forum.
This is where I suppose I will separate (or greatly differ) from Lionel because the Deity of Christ – fullyGod/fullyman is not up for discussion in my books (call me what you want). Furthermore, for a man who says he’s not a JW, your views are very close to theirs in two main areas that you’ve often referred to in various discussions (interestly, the same two areas they tend to bring up every time they knock my door).
Seekerman, I kinda liked your statement:
…but to broaden my horizons and learn something that can allow me to think a second time.
Good stuff… but hey, I’m from the enemy camp
black, reformed, cessationist – but I think that was a fair statement that I try to apply to non cardinal teachings (eg that Christ is God).
In fact, let me say that again (it moves my soul to reflect on it bro’) Christ is God!!!! Hallelujah
Lionel,
Just wanted to add one more that I would love to get your feedback on. You previously stated to me:
“… that means He is some type of mini-deity and you really are polythesitic.”
My question to you:
12) How do you explain John 20:17?
This scripture would seem to mean that Jesus is some type of mini-deity and you really are polythesitic.
Also, many people seem to believe that the book of John is written to proclaim that Jesus is God (John 1 – Logos). However, mistranslations, capatilizations, punctionations, etc. can portray a wrong understanding of the true intent of the writer. John 20: 30-31 clearly states the main purpose of the writing, that Jesus is the SON OF GOD, NOT GOD, and that by believing in Jesus you may have life in his name.
BTw apologies not sure how my comment came out under Jon’s name???
Cushie
Jon here are my quick answers.
1. In redemption God the Father takes on the role of the one needing to be atoned to. Jesus “lowers Himself” to take on the role of the one atoning. Let me ask a question in return. How can Jesus lay down His own life and raise it up Himself? If He is just a man or a really powerful angel, can you show me any example of either laying down and raising up their own life?
2. Christ in His incarnation “set aside His rights” as Paul clearly teaches. Thus in human form He set aside His rights as God (omnipresent, omniscient….) for the sake of becoming a man (he was made in every way like us, yet without sin) in order to atone for humanity.
3. You are correct. That is why He is the only one who was, is and will ever be both. This question is for you to answer. I never suggested that Jesus was completely like us, He was divine, the scripture teaches that He was made in every way like us. That is his humanity.
4. Yes, we will be joint heirs with Christ who is God.
5. Heir only deals with redemption. We have to read it in its context. You are overlapping thoughts.
6. No and No. The firstborn is the firstborn from the dead, read the scripture again. If you are talking Colossians there are 500 responses most likely on google talking about Firstborn is a position over not within.
7. Do you know anyone who has not sinned even once? The same bible says “yet without sin”. Has there been a sinless human that you know of?
8. God can do what He likes if not He is no longer God.
9. In His incarnation yes.
10. No, why do you ask?
11. Sure, if He decides so. You believe that He loses His power over creation, that man must choose. Isn’t that a forfetif of His power, isn’t free will a forfeit. He forfeits His power over creation and gives it to us right? He desires that we do one thing, we do the other, is that a forfeit of power?
12. This is the risen Christ speaking, who even as today, has still forfetied some of His divinity (redemption is still in process and He says “the time for my return is up to the Father”). Once all things are settled, the Father will lay everything at His feet and Christ will be ALL IN ALL. Tell me this Jon, do you know of a man or angel who God will subject all things to? Who will be all in all? Show me one.
Let me add another question for the discussion. What do you take of Hebrews 1:6-10? Here are the question.
If Jesus is to be worshipped, and God alone deserves and even is the only one to be worshipped, what do we do with this section of Scripture? How can angels worship Jesus isn’t that idolatry?
Why does God say to God “Your throne O God”. Jesus again is referred to as Theos.
So let me ask, who exactly is Jesus is he a man, an angel or something beneath God but above angels? What is Jesus?
Cush,
Everything is up for discussion, will it be resolved? That I doubt. But everything is up for discussion
First of all Jon, I didn’t waste my time with my remarks directed at you, despite what you believe, want to believe, or would like for me and others to believe. Secondly, it’s kinda foolish to assume that your back and forth will go unchallenged, or not be addressed, regardless of who you’re addressing.
That’s arrogant.
Jon Paden, you may believe in “Jesus,” but the Jesus you believe in, is another “Jesus.” Oh don’t get me wrong, you have that right, but let’s just admit that the “Jesus” you believe in, isn’t the same Jesus as those who believe in Jesus’ divinity as being God.
And to Cush or Jon, remember, despite what anyone says-JESUS REALLY DID DIE FOR EVERYONE, NOT JUST A SELECT FEW.
Seeker,
He died for the elect and that is the end of it you hear?
Seekerman,
You arrogantly stated:
“Secondly, it’s kinda foolish to assume that your back and forth will go unchallenged, or not be addressed, regardless of who you’re addressing.
That’s arrogant.”
My response:
Let’s copy and past my previous comment to you. Read it carefully this time:
“Furthermore, you nor does anyone else HAVE TO engage in the discussion that WAS ADDRESSED TO LIONEL. In other words, maybe you should mind your own.”
So since my comment that was addressed to Lionel bothered you so much, maybe you should just have stayed out of the conversation unless you had something noteworthy to add to the discussion BETWEEN LIONEL AND I. I never assumed that no one would comment, I simply stated that you nor does anyone else HAVE TO comment ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING IT.
I am not interested in anyones interest
Lionel,
Here is that info that I wanted to relay in regards to worshipping Jesus.
(Young’s Literal)
Heb1:6 – and when again He may bring in the first-born to the world, He saith, `And let them bow before him — all messengers of God;’
worship him – “pay him homage.” “The Greek is proskuneō (#4352 proskune,w; from kuneo, kune,w
‘to kiss’). The word proskuneo is frequently used to designate the custom of prostrating oneself before a person or persons and kissing their feet or the hem of their garment, the ground, etc.; the Persians did this in the presence of their deified king, and the Greeks before a divinity or something holy. It is to express in attitude or gesture one’s complete dependence on or submission to an authority figure, (fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully . It is used very often in the Septuagint for hw”x]T;v.hi (to prostrate oneself). Properly, it means to kiss the hand to (toward) one, in token of reverence. Hence, among the Orientals,
especially the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence (“to make a ‘salam.’”). The Latin is veneror (cp. our
“venerate”) and adoro (“adore”); hence, in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used of homage shown to men of superior rank.
In 1611, when the KJV was being written, the English word “worship” was used of the worship of deity, but it was also used of bowing down before men of higher rank, which was an expected act of respect and deference at that time. Kings and nobles expected people to bow before them. This was also true of NT society, which was very hierarchical. Thus, it was expected at the time of Jesus, and in the 1600’s that someone
would bow down or prostrate themselves before a superior, especially someone such as a king. This form of prostration is still seen among the Moslems when they pray, prostrating themselves before Allah. The act of prostrating oneself before a king or dignitary then led to them being designated as “Your Worship.” Thus, in 1611, translating proskuneo as “worship” worked very well and was not confusing, however, in
the four centuries since the KJV, we stopped bowing and prostrating ourselves (worshipping) those of higher rank, so it is confusing to us today. Today we restrict the use of the word “worship” to God, except in a few instances, especially when we use it in a hyperbolic and idiomatic sense, such as “He
worships that new car,” or, “She worships the ground he walks on.” Even then, it is used as a term of extravagant respect. In fact, the idea of worship as deeply bowing or falling in prostration before a person of higher status has completely left modern English vocabulary (as per Merriam-Webster’s 11th edition Collegiate Dictionary). Thus, while it was appropriate to translate proskuneo as “worship” in 1611, if we today translate
proskuneo as “worship,” it often makes the verse take on a meaning that is not in the Greek text at all. For example, the Magi did not think of Jesus as God, and did not “worship” him as they would a deity. Rather, they did him homage as they would a king. That is not to say that some uses of proskuneo in the NT should not be translated Matthew 10 “worship.” For example, the Devil asked Jesus to fall down and “worship” him. The
Devil wanted the same worship as God, so “worship” is a good translation there.”
- http://www.stfonline.org/pdf/rev/matthew_commentary.pdf
Seekerman,
*Yeah what’s up?
-You arrogantly stated:
*No, you arrogantly state that I “arrogantly stated,” which is a falsehood on your part. I didn’t “arrogantly” state anything, but righteously dealt with your foolishness.
Here’s the quote he put up of mine:
“Secondly, it’s kinda foolish to assume that your back and forth will go unchallenged, or not be addressed, regardless of who you’re addressing.
That’s arrogant.”
My response to the above quote:
Yes I said that, and?
He said:
Let’s copy and past my previous comment to you. Read it carefully this time:
My response:
Go on right ahead, but I don’t see what good that will do…
This is what he told me before:
“Furthermore, you nor does anyone else HAVE TO engage in the discussion that WAS ADDRESSED TO LIONEL. In other words, maybe you should mind your own.”
My response:
And I’m telling you in a not so subtle way that I don’t care who you were addressing, man. This is a public forum, and you don’t own the airwaves, neither can you dictate to me, or anyone, where they will insert themselves, onto a particular topic. If you’re so agitated by what I have to say to you, then grow up-quickly. I’m not going to stifle what I have to say to you, just because you don’t like, which is what this is really all about.
This makes you very immature.
He said:
So since my comment that was addressed to Lionel bothered you so much, maybe you should just have stayed out of the conversation
My response:
Every one responds to someone, or something, because they were compelled, or “bothered.” Some folks have been bothered by what you’ve said previously, or what Lionel has said, or other folks have said, and have chimed in letting folks know just exactly how they feel. So what, just because I’m “bothered” by what you say, that somehow disqualifies me, on a righteous level, not to intermix views into the mix by addressing you?
Naw man, I’m sorry, but I ain’t the one. You provided the stimulus; therefore I came back at you with what I know to be a righteous admonition.
The real truth of the matter is, you were offended and bothered, by my rebuke of your transparent motivations, more so than I was “bothered” by your Christological sophistry.
You’re not fooling anyone.
He said:
unless you had something noteworthy to add to the discussion BETWEEN LIONEL AND I.
My response:
Oh, I had something noteworthy to say, regardless of how you pretend the opposite. What you’re attempting to do is convince yourself, myself, and others, that I had nothing “noteworthy,” with your petty jedi mind tricks.
Pathetic.
I never assumed that no one would comment, I simply stated that you nor does anyone else HAVE TO comment ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN DISCUSSING IT.
My response:
Even if you didn’t assume that no one would comment, you don’t have to remind me that I don’t have to comment, unless you were really offended by the admonition, which apparently you were.
Take in slow steady breaths, my brother, and exhale…
Regarding Blueprints, I have been reading through the book by Neil Cole known as “Church 3.0″–and have been really enjoying what the man had to say, as he brought to view the fact that even in the NT/Epistles, the differing churches described all have differing characteristics/dynamics……and with the text seen as a narrative, one can see how the church was already evolving into differing forms that could best suit the environment it was in.
Gabe,
Are you promoting a more fluid structure with a formed gospel? Or do you believe there are specific principles that should go from generation and culture to generation and culture? Do you believe there is a wrong way to do church?
Seekerman,
Let’s end it here. Please forgive me if I have been of any offense to you.
Jon-
Please stop hijacking threads, man!!! This is SO old.
Lionel, the elect are those who respond to the the elect Jesus Christ. It’s like me saying that I’m offering food for those who want to eat, to where those who partake of the food, are the “filled ones.” I’m not blocking anyone one particular person, or persons, or groups, from being in the category of the “filled ones,” because I’m offering it to anyone who chooses to partake of the free food being offered.
And even if I know who’s going to eat, and those whose not going to eat, because of my seer like and clairvoyant predilections (I’m speaking tongue and cheek here)-I still will offer everyone the free gift of food, so that no man or woman, can ever righteously say, that I never gave them a chance to become a member of the “filled ones,” due to food not being offered to them.
This is quite different than if I were to prepare food, for only a certain select group of people, whether they are hungry or not, simply because it’s my prerogative. If someone who’s truly hungry will pop on the scene and say, “That’s not fair, I was hungry, and I was not offered any food, or given a proper chance to become a ‘filled one,’” I will be without any righteous excuse, other than to honestly say, “Well, you may be hungry, however, I didn’t love you enough, and think you’re worthy of being a member of the “filled ones” club, just because I didn’t want you too; not only that-you didn’t want to eat anyway.”
The person can respond by saying, “That may be the case, HOWEVER, I was never really given the chance to respond to the food being offered, regardless if I ever wanted to eat, or not. You just took upon yourself to doom me to not being a part of the ‘filled ones’ club, by not providing enough provisions of food for me to eat, so in the end- I was never given a proper chance, or offered a choice in the matter.”
I would respond by saying “The real crux of the matter is-it doesn’t matter if I ever gave you a proper chance at eating, or not, for in the end, it’s totally my prerogative to do with my own food, what I want to do with it, and if I want to reject you my food, because I have that right to, and if I purposefully from the beginning, while preparing the food, intentionally never had you in mind to be a member of the “filled ones” club, then that’s my right and prerogative, because it’s my food; and I’m sorry buddy, I intentionally made it to where you didn’t make the cut.”
Then the person will say, “Oh, but you will allow that slavemaster, that rapist, that murderer, that segregationist, that child molester, that thief, that eater of human flesh, to eat your food, whereas even though I’m not perfect, my character’s not that bad, but yet I’m deprived” only for me to say, “Hey what can I say.”
In closing the person can say, “Well that’s not fair,” whereupon I will smugly respond by saying, “It doesn’t have to be fair to you, according to how one normally counts fairness and equality, but I will declare it as being fair, simply because-haven’t you heard-IT’S MY PREROGATIVE!”
God doesn’t operate this way, or think this way. Don’t get me wrong, God is sovereign, and this sovereignty of his is an ATTRIBUTE of God, not the ESSENCE of God, which is LOVE, people! This is why he died for EVERYONE, and not just a select few, to where those who respond to the free offering of salvation, will become the ELECT, because they believe in, and put their faith in, the ELECT: JESUS CHRIST, GOD ALMIGHTY!
Seeker,
I disagree.
I will end by saying that folks who believe, and REVEL in the fact that Jesus’ atonement doesn’t apply to everyone, but just them, possess a serious character flaw.
And for folks to believe that EVERY act, even those acts that are heinous, macabre, and disgusting, was preordained by God (I’ve heard hyper Calvinist proclaim this), and that God doesn’t truly love everyone (I’ve heard hyper Calivinist teach this and proclaim this, so let’s not pretend here)-have a very satanic outlook on who God truly is.
There I said it!
I will say this and will definitely end this:
Only Satan would want you to arrogantly believe that Jesus died for you, and not your neighbor. Only Satan would want you to believe that little Shanequa was gang raped by those wicked men, because God preordained it. Only Satan would want you to believe that his take on theology, as it relates to the atonement, salvation, and the like-is true REFORM.
Seeker,
Just because you say something doesn’t effect its truthfulness. Let me ask you a couple of questions.
1. Did Jesus die for those he knew would accept Him?
2. Could Jesus have died and no one accept Him?
And “satanic” is a very troubling choice of words Seeker. People have deduce their positions from what they believe the bible teaches, you can say wrong but to say satanic seems to be harsh man. I think you should reconsider that, especially for people who love Jesus man.
Seeker,
I also disagree with your comment #42.
Seeker,
*Yeah what’s up?
-Just because you say something doesn’t effect its truthfulness.
*Never said it did, but just because you say that, doesn’t mean that what I espouse doesn’t contain the whole truth of the matter.
-Let me ask you a couple of questions.
*Shoot.
-1. Did Jesus die for those he knew would accept Him?
*He died for total humanity. Of course being God, and omniscient, and a being who’s not limited by our finite understanding of time and space, as well as eternity, he realized in the final consummation of things, who would accept his free gift offering, and those who wouldn’t-BUT LET THE OMNISCIENCE AND ALL-KNOWING GOD WORK THAT OUT, AND FIGURE THAT OUT, not us.
In our finite understanding of the mystery of God, and how he foreknows a thing-it can lead us to the erroneous logical extreme that foolishly believes that if God foreknows, HE PREORDAINS-which is not necessarily the same thing. Some things God preordains for his own glory, whereas other things he don’t. In the matter of salvation, his mysterious omniscience, that surpasses human finite understanding, foreknows who will be saved, because he sees the beginning as well as the end, but he doesn’t, again-PREORDAIN THOSE TO HELL, AND THOSE TO HEAVEN AHEAD OF THE GAME.
There are bountiful scriptures that prove, very plainly, that this isn’t the case. Folks on your side of the aisle have to contort, reconfigure, and reshape the plain meaning of scripture, by adding your own theological presuppositions, and dare I may say PREDILECTIONS, in order to come to any other conclusion, based on an elitist agenda.
-2. Could Jesus have died and no one accept Him?
*That I don’t know, because as a finite human being, whose limited even in the workings and machinations of other human beings, it’s hard to say. Simply put, I’m glad that on this side of eternity, I don’t have to hash that out. My only duty is to facilitate the belief of that which is revealed in scripture: JESUS CHRIST DIED ON THE CROSS FOR THE WHOLE WORLD, FOR TOTAL HUMANITY; NOT JUST A SELECT FEW.
If folks CHOOSE not to come to God, then they are truly without an excuse come Judgment Day. Your side of the aisle tries to intellectualize how God works with man, and square that with your belief concerning the sovereignty of God, by saying that if every human being doesn’t become saved, after Christ died for them, then that means that God is weak, or was not victorious on the cross. As a result, you decide to help God out by saying he didn’t die for everyone, just a select few, therefore God doesn’t come out looking like weak, but strong and victorious.
In other words, you intellectualize and try to help God out, in your own perverted way, instead of allowing God to work it out his way.
To me, this is a lazy, elitist, and satanic approach to the matter, for in the end, only the devil would want you to believe that Christ’s atonement on the cross wasn’t efficacious for all, but just for the “chosen crew.” Yeah, Christ’s atonement is for the “chosen crew,” and that “chosen crew,” are those who accept Christ’s free offering of salvation.
-And “satanic” is a very troubling choice of words Seeker.
*How so?
- People have deduce their positions from what they believe the bible teaches, you can say wrong but to say satanic seems to be harsh man.
*It’s no harsher than what some folks on your side of the aisle will say, when they imply, or outright state that those who don’t believe in limited atonement, and irresistible grace-aren’t truly saved, or that we serve another Jesus. And trust me, I’ve met folks from your side of the aisle, whether it is in real life, or on the net, who actually believe this, and for them to believe this, and get off on the fact that they are of the “chosen” class, and that salvation doesn’t extend to everyone, is, for the lack of a better term-Satanic.
-I think you should reconsider that, especially for people who love Jesus man.
*I hear what you’re saying. And I do realize that two potential wrongs, don’t make a right. I just wished your side of the aisle would stop bludgeoning my side of the aisle, while perceiving and treating us as second class Christians who haven’t gotten the “revelation.”
In the end, I guess we all can do better.
Lionel said:
“Seeker,
I also disagree with your comment #42.”
My response:
Oh, so you do believe then, that God preordained little Shanequa to get gang raped by those sick wicked men?
Ok Lionel let me put it this way:
When I say that folks who REVEL and get off on the teaching of irresistible grace and limited atonement, as being Satanic, I really do believe that this is what they’re being at the moment. For only folks who are inspired by Satanic leanings, would rejoice that they’re in the class of saved folks, whereas others are going to hell, because that’s how God preordained it to be-which is completely opposite of what the scripture teaches, regardless of how your side tries to spin it. And when I say that they have character flaws, if they REVEL in these aspects of reformed theology, I really do believe that.
HOWEVER, I’m not questioning their love for Jesus, but rather their carnal interpretations concerning the work of Jesus on the cross, in that they, again, REVEL and get off, and feel comfortable with the fact that GOD PREORDAINS PEOPLE TO A HELLISH ETERNITY, WHEREAS THEY WERE LUCKY ENOUGH TO BELONG TO THE “JESUS LOVES YOU CLUB.”
I can’t get any plainer than that.
Seekerman,
Lionel stated:
“And “satanic” is a very troubling choice of words Seeker. People have deduce their positions from what they believe the bible teaches, you can say wrong but to say satanic seems to be harsh man. I think you should reconsider that, especially for people who love Jesus man.”
My response:
I would have to agree with Lionel on that one. And please don’t take this the wrong way. But I could just as easily say that people who teach that God has or will somehow fail in His plan to reconcile the whole world (EVERYBODY) to Himself through Christ, is SATANIC teaching. Which (I could say) is CLEARLY SEEN in the scriptures (2 Cor 5:19, 1Cor 15:24-28). I could also state the same thing about the difference in beings/persons of God and that of Jesus (I Cor 15:24-28). But in order to be respectful towards those you are trying to convince or simply discuss with, you may want to check your use of words. I have found that people can be very quick to shut down from listening and miss the very points you are trying to make. And don’t forget that you could be in error as well. Stay humble and keep seeking more of God’s truth.
And again, pleas do not take this as an attack against you.
Seeker,
I don’t know what side you are referring to; however, there is no one I know personally or even from the blog world who believes that if a person believes in free will that they are “truly unsaved”. I am sure there are just as many who believe that Calvinist are “satanic” you being one.
Seeker,
I would also say it is funny that you say “I don’t have to work this out on this side of eternity” but you have worked it out on this side of eternity