Matthew 24

Spirituality

05 Jul 16

Joined: 03 Sep 13
Moves: 18093

09 Jul 16

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, I don't mean to say that my beliefs come from this book, I misspoke.

What I mean to say is that my beliefs come directly from the Bible, but I agree with what Hal Lindsey wrote in The Late, Great Planet Earth. Another author who has captured my endtime beliefs is Dr. David Jeremiah in Agents of the Apocalypse.

I do not agree with ...[text shortened]... if we don't survive it, we can still emerge with our souls intact by staying true to our Savior.

I think it was around 1980 that I read my first book on eschatology, it was " The Late Great Plant Earth", subsequently I read several more books on the subject including others that Hal Lindsey (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l38.html) had published. I know that through the years as many have done, not just Hal... predictions were made under the 'guise of biblical prophecy' , dates are set, and time comes and goes with little to no fanfare. Perhaps a pivotal point in the failure of eschatology and the setting the dates was the '88 Reason Why the Rapture will be in 1988' by Edgar Whisenant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_C._Whisenant). Although I did not really take this too serious... i did pay attention. Guess what, there was no rapture. About a year later the author of that book figured he made a mistake in his calculations and came out with another book/pamphlet the following year 'The final shout: Rapture report 1989', After 1989 was a bust, the pamphlet was apparently renamed 'The Final Shout--Rapture Report 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994' etc. In my opinion, eschatology and bible prophecy of this type has become a fairly lucrative business for authors, I don't believe most of them really know what they are talking about. All it takes is one major event in the Middle East to happen and along come a whole slew of new books on the 'end is near'.

You may remember and maybe even read a few... in the 90's it was the 'Left Behind Series' by Tim LaHaye (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind) in which the premise of the books was about the coming to power of the global leader called the 'Anti Christ', I believe in all there were 15-16 novels written and sold, we Christians ATE IT UP... fictional works pawned off as biblical prophecy in which the author became wealthy because of the books and movies made. I don't know that Tim LaHaye even believes his books, but many Christians do and have,

I have listened to David Jeremiah on the radio and have enjoyed some of his messages, but I was unaware of his involvement with end-time related things and the book that you have mentioned, I will look into it.

The point is, many have come and many have gone with predictions, 'prophecy', end times events being upon us... I have fallen to it, don't you feel that maybe you have too, just a little? The author of the video in the OP speaks to many of these concepts or 'prophecies', which I found to be very interesting. Could it be possible that there is an immense misunderstanding of eschatology as a whole by the church? I don't know, but given how things have shaken out in 45 years since its start with 'The Late Great Plant Earth', I will listen to other points on the subject although they may conflict with what I come to believe, I will analyze and see how points of view that differ from my own line up with the bible and consider them.

I wonder how many authors and self-proclaimed prophets would seek the office if held to the OT standards for predictions, few I think.

You mentioned that Welton is wrong, what point specifically do you think he is wrong? Have you watched the video?

Thanks Suzi

Joined: 03 Sep 13
Moves: 18093

09 Jul 16

Originally posted by Rajk999
For me they are the same. But for many Christians here, I have noticed that they would say it is important to follow Jesus and then with the next breath say that following the commandments are not essential. So they must think that there is a difference.

Christ has commanded that people follow his commandments, and this is the way to the Kingdom of God. Christ will judge who does follow and who only follows with their mouth.

That is my belief, following Jesus and following Jesus commandments are the same. Thanks

Joined: 03 Sep 13
Moves: 18093

09 Jul 16

Originally posted by yoctobyte
I did inquire of your church to find out more about what is believed. While I am in agreement with some things, other things I am not. My impression is that the organization seems a little exclusive. By this I mean there are the church leaders/founders and it is through their writings/sermons that the church functions, this is a little constrictive for ...[text shortened]... her as God intended.

I may be wrong about the local church, but this is my first impressions.

Explain where you see "exclusievity" in the practice of the local church please.

I could have used a better word than exclusive, it is not really what I meant when I used it an I am still grasping for the correct word. What I mean to say is.., I have the sense from the different things that I have read that the' Local Church' is similar in nature to that of JW and Mormonism in structure. Please understand me, I do not mean similar in doctrine but in how they have a leader/founder who is sort of the final authority of the organization and of doctrine. Jehovah Witnesses have Russell and the Watchtower, Mormons have Joseph Smith, Local Church has Watchman Lee. And all three organizations have a variation of the bible and why theirs is the right one.

I have family members that are JW, and I know that they will not step into a church, read books on faith and/or God or listen to music that are not of the JW's or approved by the Watchtower. My uncle once told me he could not come to a birthday party with friends and family because Armageddon might happen.

For the JW's in this forum, I am in no way making fun of your faith, I am only sharing my experience, that is all.

Jesus is the head of the church and is the final authority, not man. That organizations want to point back to people for authority, that I have a conflict with, this is what I meant to say. I am not being critical, just not accepting.

~~Removed~~

Joined: 03 Jan 13
Moves: 13080

09 Jul 16

3 edits

Originally posted by yoctobyte

I have the sense from the different things that I have read that the' Local Church' is similar in nature to that of JW and Mormonism in structure. Please understand me, I do not mean similar in doctrine but in how they have a leader/founder who is sort of the final authority of the organization and of doctrine. Jehovah Witnesses have Russell and the Watchtower, Mormons have Joseph Smith, Local Church has Watchman Lee. And all three organizations have a variation of the bible and why theirs is the right one.

I have listened to you. And my reply -

The local church receives all Christians whether they do or do not read books by Watchman Nee. Reading books by Watchman Nee is not a criteria upon which a person is received by the church.

In Corinth Paul discouraged divisions based upon preference to workers -

" For it has been made clear o me concerning you, my brothers, by those of the household of Chloe, that there are strifes among you.

Now I mean this, that each of you says, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ.

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?" (1 Cor. 11-13)

To receive teaching and blessing from Paul's ministry is not wrong.
To establish a Pauline Church is divisive.

To receive teaching from Martin Luther is not in and of itself wrong.
However to establish a Lutheran Church is divisive if you mean reception of Luther's ministry is a criteria for being a member of the Lutheran Church.

To receive ministry from Watchman Nee is not wrong.
If we should establish a Watchman Nee Church that is a denomination.

A local church simply receives all the believers in a locality in principle as being the constituent members of that church. No other qualification is demanded. You may have received blessing from books by Watchman Nee or you may have not. You may not LIKE books by Watchman Nee. Agreement with Watchman Nee is not a criteria for Christians to meet as the city wide church.

If Watchman Nee or R.C. Sproul or Martin Luther or John McArther teaches the New Testmament in one of its several cardinal teachings, IE. the resurrection of the Son of God our Lord and Savior, disagreement with that puts you at odds with the church, but not because of the teachers but because of the Bible.

You cannot fault Christians for receiving help from one or more teachers.
If they do make reception of the teacher's teaching criteria for participation in the local church then you have a sect and not a normal church.

So you should not be concerned that many of us like to read books by Watchman Nee per se. We do not have a Watchman Nee Church as Paul said the Corinthians should not divide the church according to the workers - Paul, Apollos, or Cephas.

Once again. For the church in a locality to say it has received much help from the writings of John Wesley, in and of itself is not wrong. To establish a Weslyan Church is a denomination because it makes John Wesley the ground of meeting rather than the locality the ground.

~~Removed~~

Joined: 03 Jan 13
Moves: 13080

09 Jul 16

1 edit

I have family members that are JW, and I know that they will not step into a church, read books on faith and/or God or listen to music that are not of the JW's or approved by the Watchtower. My uncle once told me he could not come to a birthday party with friends and family because Armageddon might happen.

We need to discern between things that are proper and things which are not.
God used Paul to write 13 or so books of the New Testament. Had you or I dictated to God about who the authors should be, perhaps we would have been more democratic.

As it stands He did not come to us for advice. And God willed that 13 books or so should be attributed to a man - Paul . Yet Paul did not establish a church after his name. And Paul would not endorse any Church built upon Paul.

This does not mean that God or Paul should apologize for having ministered so much that was helpful to God's people.

I can appreciate the ministry of Watchman Nee without using his books as a litmus test as to who is my brother or sister in Christ. And in the local churches whoever has been received by Christ has to be received by the local church.

You will be welcomed into the fellowship of the local church without being an ardent reader of books by Watchman Nee. And the day they make the church where I fellowship the "Watchman Nee Church" is the day that I will stop meeting with them.

But the church is in Spirit and on the local ground. That is all.
But neither do we need to be ashamed that this help has been brought to us largely through the ministry of Nee. God used this brother to help us to see the local ground of the practical church. What can we say?

For the JW's in this forum, I am in no way making fun of your faith, I am only sharing my experience, that is all.

Jesus is the head of the church and is the final authority, not man. That organizations want to point back to people for authority, that I have a conflict with, this is what I meant to say. I am not being critical, just not accepting.

That is right on. And in no other fellowship have I ever noticed that eventually the Lord Spirit as the Head of the Body has the final word. My experience has been that always in the last analysis the Holy Spirit has the last word in the local churches.

Sometimes it may take time. The local churches are not a utopia any more than the church in Corinth or the church in Philippi was a utopia. But my experience has been the Headship of Christ is honored to the utmost. He eventually has the last word.

Kali

PenTesting

Joined: 04 Apr 04
Moves: 251220

09 Jul 16

Originally posted by yoctobyte
Explain where you see "exclusievity" in the practice of the local church please.

I could have used a better word than exclusive, it is not really what I meant when I used it an I am still grasping for the correct word. What I mean to say is.., I have the sense from the different things that I have read that the' Local Church' is similar i ...[text shortened]... have a conflict with, this is what I meant to say. I am not being critical, just not accepting.

Some years, maybe decades ago, there was a brand name called 'No Name' Brand. People were tired of brand names and this company thought that they can capitalise on this and fool people into thinking that No Name Brand meant that the brand had no name.

Sonships church called the local church is like that. it attempts to disassociate itself with big-name churches and to fool people into believing that they are any different. But the facts are no different - they have a leader/s which they place up on a pedestal. They have a strict doctrine to which they must adhere .. same old thing in different clothes.

Kali

PenTesting

Joined: 04 Apr 04
Moves: 251220

09 Jul 16

Originally posted by yoctobyte
That is my belief, following Jesus and following Jesus commandments are the same. Thanks

Glad to hear that. How you go about your discussions with people and where you place the commandments of Christ in the overall scheme of things is going to tell whether what you claim is true.

~~Removed~~

Joined: 03 Jan 13
Moves: 13080

09 Jul 16

4 edits

Originally posted by Rajk999

Generally, you do write a lot of stupid things Rajk999.

Sonships church called the local church is like that. it attempts to disassociate itself with big-name churches and to fool people into believing that they are any different.

There is no "fooling" of people. There is no deception being practiced. In the New Testament the plural word churches is seen. This has to mean that on the earth there is more than one practical church though the church be universally one.

What is the criteria then for discriminating one church from another church? - geography, locality. And around the world Christians have been led by the Lord to return to that simple principle.

Now if you disagree with genuine local churches then provide proof from the New Testament that that principle - one city matched with one church, is varied.

And if you cannot site us an example then there is no fooling or deception being practiced by Christians who long for the scriptural ground of unity.

We allow you freedom of conscience not to meet on this ground if you do not wish to. But we exercise our freedom of conscience to not be denominated or sectarian but meet on the ground of locality.

~~Removed~~

Joined: 03 Jan 13
Moves: 13080

09 Jul 16

2 edits

But the facts are no different - they have a leader/s which they place up on a pedestal.

This is a stupid criticism.

In Philppians Paul said such workers that risked their lives for the service of the saints could be and should be held in honor.

Why could you yourself not be recommended if you also served the saints well? There is no reason why you might not also be held in esteem as a faithful servant of God. Are you jealous? Are you envious ?

Ephaphras was a Christian who served diligently the church in Philippi. And Paul said for that men and women like him should be held in honor.

"But I considered it necessary to send to you Epaphraditus, my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your apostle and minister to my need. (v.25)

I have sent him therefore the more eagerly, so that when you see him again, you may rejoice ... Receive him therefore in the Lord with all joy, AND HOLD SUCH IN HONOR,

Because for the work of Christ he drew near unto death, risking his life, ... " (vs 28 - 30)

The stupidity of your criticism would have scolded the church in Philippi for over exalting the name of Epaphraditus. Yet the Holy Spirit says to hold such faithful servants in honor.

What's the matter with you? You cannot conceive that a servant of God could be held in esteem without making him an object of worship ?

The local church - the church in Philippi can honor some faithful servants of Christ and still be the proper city wide church on the ground of oneness Phillippians 2:25-30)

~~Removed~~

Joined: 03 Jan 13
Moves: 13080

09 Jul 16

5 edits

They have a strict doctrine to which they must adhere .. same old thing in different clothes.

What strict doctrine is that ? Did you read The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches statement of faith ?

You are a slanderous lying fellow Rajk999. No one is more sectarian and divisive on this whole Forum purporting to be a disciple of Jesus than YOU Rajk999. Find a Christian who disagrees with this assessment on this Forum.

There are only a precious few number of things which the local churches could not tolerate to be taught among us -

Denying th Bible as the Word of God
Denying the Deity of Christ
Teaching Idolatry
Gross habitual sinful living

The things for which put a man or women in a quarantined state or asked to not associate with the churching people are few in the New Testament. There are not that many things mentioned. A few things are strictly adhered to.

You are slandering the local churches. For the things which are "strictly" insisted be respected in order to not violate the life and unity of the local church are not many and do not exceed those few serious thing enumerated in the New Testament.

they have a leader/s which they place up on a pedestal. They have a strict doctrine to which they must adhere .. same old thing in different clothes.

There is nothing wrong with having leaders. Any leadership among the local churches is not automatic or hierarchical or traditional. It is based on spiritual healthiness and evidence of God's blessing.

If you are against leadership per se it must be because you are some kind of anarchist who is unable to follow anyone but yourself.

"Remember the ones LEADING YOU, who have spoken to you the word of God; and consider the issue of their manner of life, imitate their faith." (Hebrews 13:7)

The NT says not just follow leaders in some blind way. It says to "consider the issue of their manner of life." That means HOW they LIVED not just what they spoke. And it is quite healthy and normal that the churches have many brothers and sisters that are highly considered as to how they lived. And leading is also a gift of the Holy Spirit.

" And having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us ... he who teaches, in that teaching; Or he who exhorts, in that exhortation; he who gives, in simplicity; HE WHO LEADS, in diligence; ... etc." (Romans 12:6-8)

God has placed in the Body those who lead. And there is no shame in having healthy leaders.

So why are you slandering the local churches because we recognize as other gifts of grace God places leaders amongst us ?

Kali

PenTesting

Joined: 04 Apr 04
Moves: 251220

09 Jul 16

Originally posted by sonship

They have a strict doctrine to which they must adhere .. same old thing in different clothes.

What strict doctrine is that ? Did you read [b]The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches statement of faith ?

You are a slanderous lying fellow Rajk999. No one is more sectarian and divisive on this whole Forum purporting to be ...[text shortened]... the local churches because we recognize as other gifts of grace God places leaders amongst us ?[/b]

Well lets see ... would I be welcome in your church [specifically the one which you attend], if I were to preach the following:

1. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and not God and not equal to God,
2. That professing your faith with your mouth, is insufficient for eternal life.
3. That a Christian can end up in eternal destruction if he does not obey the commandments of Jesus.

~~Removed~~

Joined: 03 Jan 13
Moves: 13080

09 Jul 16

1 edit

Beliefs & Practices

Our Beliefs

The local churches believe that the Holy Bible is the complete divine revelation verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Tim. 6:12).

The local churches believe that God is the only one Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—co-existing equally from eternity to eternity (1 Tim. 2:5a, Matt. 28:19).

The local churches believe that the Son of God, even God Himself, became incarnated to be a man by the name of Jesus, born of the virgin Mary, that He might be our Redeemer and Savior (Jn. 1:1, 1:14, Matt. 1:23).

The local churches believe that Jesus, a genuine man, lived on this earth for thirty-three and a half years to make God the Father known to men (Jn. 1:18).

The local churches believe that Jesus, the Christ anointed by God with His Holy Spirit, died on the cross for our sins and shed His blood for the accomplishment of our redemption (Matt. 3:16, 1 Pet. 2:24, Eph. 1:7a).

The local churches believe that Jesus Christ, after being buried for three days, resurrected from the dead physically and spiritually and that, in resurrection, He has become the life-giving Spirit to impart Himself into us as our life and our everything (Acts 10:40, 1 Cor. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:45b).

The local churches believe that after His resurrection Christ ascended to the heavens and that God has made Him the Lord of all (Acts 2:33, 2:36).

The local churches believe that after His ascension Christ poured down the Spirit of God to baptize His chosen members into one Body and that the Spirit of God, who is also the Spirit of Christ, is moving on this earth today to convict sinners, to regenerate God’s chosen people, to dwell in the members of Christ for their growth in life, and to build up the Body of Christ for His full expression (Acts 1:8, 1 Cor. 12:13, Rom 8:9, Jn. 16:8, Titus 3:5, Eph. 4:16).

The local churches believe that at the end of this age Christ will come back to take up His members, to judge the world, to take possession of the earth, and to establish His eternal kingdom (1 Thes. 2:19).

The local churches believe that the overcoming saints will reign with Christ in the millennium and that all the believers in Christ will participate in the divine blessings in the New Jerusalem in the new heaven and new earth for eternity (Rev. 20:6, 21:2).

Romans 14 sets for two important principles about receiving saints.

1.) Some who are simply "weak in faith" should be received.

"Now him who is weak in faith receive, but not for the purpose of passing judgments on his considerations. (Rom. 14:1)

Saying Jesus is the Son of God but the Son of God is not God could just be being weak in faith. If you actually deny the Deity of Jesus you're not my brother in Christ.

i don't know who is going to listen to such teaching. You may consider yourself a teacher. But if no one listens you just have an empty title. Though we may receive you, you yourself may not be happy that you cannot push your tampering with the deity of Christ on others who know better.

In receiving believers the Apostle said the most important thing is to receive one another as we ourselves have been receive by Christ. If we discern the Christ has received you (funny ideas and all) we too will receive you. This is a matter of spiritual life. This is a matter of discerning the spiritual life of a person as to whether they have a relationship with Christ or do not.

"Therefore receive one another, as Christ also received you to the glory of God." (Rom. 15:7)

I never sense that YOU received ME as a Christian brother very much. And I think other believers on this Forum probably have felt the same. You have not received Christians when we could testify we are sure Jesus has received us.

If I ask you if you know Christ you would probably launch into one of two diatribes:

1.) It is your personal affair of which you never speak.

2.) Keeping His commandments is all that is important.

But you come around the Body life and the light will reveal most likely if you in fact have been received by Christ. If you have been then the local church will receive you even if you are weak in faith.

~~Removed~~

Joined: 03 Jan 13
Moves: 13080

09 Jul 16

1 edit

Taken from Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches

http://www.localchurches.org/beliefs/standing.html [My bolding]

Beliefs & Practices

Our Standing

The local churches stand on the Holy Scriptures, not according to any traditional interpretation, but according to the pure Word of God.

The local churches stand on Christ, the living rock, the foundation stone, the Head of the Body, and the life and reality of the church.

The local churches stand on the genuine unity of the Body of Christ. We are not sectarian, nor denominational, nor nondenominational, nor interdenominational.

The local churches stand on the ground of the oneness of all believers in each locality; we recognize all the blood-redeemed and Spirit-regenerated believers in Christ as members of the one church in each city.

Kali

PenTesting

Joined: 04 Apr 04
Moves: 251220

10 Jul 16

2 edits