 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
myinquringmind |
| Broncofan you make some very good points in both your posts. I AMEN them both!!!! |
Friendly Face
Posts: 100
3/6/07 9:59 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: Hey Guys, let's call a truce here. |
Charlie Metz |
Broncofan,
I will directly answer your question because you don't seem to get the questions we are posing. Is their a chord that is satanic? Of course not. That is a ridiculous question and a straw man. You, my brother, have missed the point of the last 9 pages. The issue is not whether a specific melody or chord is sinful, it is what the lyrical accompaniment with the chord and the singer that is represents. For example, I asked why Kevin didn't introduce beer. I am a hardcore conservative and I believe drinking is wrong for various reasons. However, I cannot quote a scripture that says, "Thou shalt not drink beer." Does that mean I cannot discuss and debate it to show you it is wrong? You tell me, is it wrong to drink beer? I believe there is scriptural evidence to infer that is is wrong for a christian to abstain from anything that could be construed as sinful. So, then, I would use the same logic with secular rock music. It isn't the chord in the music, it is the promotion of a lifestyle when you deem it acceptable, as a leader in the christian church, to listen to and accept a worldly lifestyle that they lead.
Someone mentioned they played Aerosmith at a church service. So, would the chords and melodies of such a song that they sing be bad? Of course not. Would you inviting them in and saying that they are good role models for Christians to follow be an acceptable action as a pastor of a church? Well, I think not. They represent all that the Bible preaches against. So, if you are promoting their work, their music (with lyrics) you are inferring that it is ok to listen to them outside of church and to mimic them in life. After all, if Pastor does it, and even brings it to church, then what harm is there in doing it at home? Surely if they were bad people Pastor wouldn't promote them to us in God's House of all places?
If that argument doesn't stand, then you can, and should, introduce beer into your services. You can have larger crowds. As long as you can control it getting out of hand to the point of drunkenness, then you are gold. If you cant, then you shouldn't have beer. I would say the same with rock bands with lifestyles that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others preached against. If you cant control ultimately what the partaker of sin will do, then why introduce even a little bit? Why take a chance of bringing that into God's house to ordain their lifestyle?
Lastly, you don't know what I do. I didn't say anything about being a pastor of a church of 50 or a church of 2000...nor will I inform you of that because it does not pertain to this discussion. The size of your congregation has nothing to do with whether you employ worldly tactics to grow your crowds. If I wanted 50,000 in a stadium I could do it with the restraints thrown off of me too. So, I imagine, with that being said, you do not believe Jesus when He said you will be hated and persecuted. If you are striving to be liked and accepted by the world, then you, my brother, have got to look at your works.
_________________
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt. 7:13-14 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 705
3/6/07 11:06 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Telecaster |
| broncofan wrote: | | Kevin, I don't think you get it with the people that disagree with you. Obviously, it is much more important to them to preach to 50 people (perhaps 95% of them already saved) and stick to their old method of doing things than to preach to 1000, and for arguments sake, say only 20% are saved. |
It's amazing how the emergent mindset and those who support it have constantly over this 10 page thread assumed that those who choose not to allow such stuff in church are only reaching 50 people. So that you will stand corrected bronco, my church is a church of over 500 people will regular ministry activities and events scheduled weekly. Evangelism takes place daily and we've seen God do a great work in our midst and the church is experiencing growth and the power of God. We're seeing new converts on a regular basis. Just in the past 2 weeks alone, we've seen 15 salvations. Check your assumptions at the door before you post next time.
| broncofan wrote: | | After all, what are those 800 doing in Church anyway? Church is for Christians isn't it? How dare those sinners come in the doors. I believe the odds are those people have been preaching to 50 people their whole ministry and 20 years from now they will be preaching to 10 (because the other 40 have died or left). But, they stuck to their principles of only wanting people in Church that are already Christians. |
Again another unfounded assumption. Our churches are growing and the only principles being stuck to our those found in the Word of God which can't be refuted by you, me, or anyone for that matter. When the Word can be used to prove my methods wrong, then so be it. Until that time, the Word proves the majority of emergent methods to be wrong.
| broncofan wrote: | | I say this as a person that prefers hymnal to Christian Rock any day of the week, and I enjoy a lot of the Contemporary Christian and believe a blend is the best way for (MOST) churches. However, they absolutely do not get it (and apparently they don't care either) that your purpose is NOT to reach people like me (and that is OK), as the majority of Churches are trying to get people like me. You are trying to reach those that the traditional Church has not reached. (That does not mean the traditional Church cannot reach them, but for whatever reason, they have been a dismal failure). |
Again assuming without facts. Where's the wisdom brother? Our churches are reaching out to sinners of course. If Christians want to come in, so be it, but the Word is clear on what our commission is and we are accomplishing that. We get it completely. Maybe it's you who doesn't. Also, the traditional church has been far from a failure. 85% of new converts say they joined a church because doctrine was clearly preached. 75% said they joined a church because truth was preached and the power to live a changed and different life was exposed. Only 10% said that music ministry had anything to do with their reasoning behind joining the church. So for all the energy used to find secular songs the sinners can relate to, even though we're supposed to be relating them to Christ, the majority didn't come in and stay in the church because of the music. Furthermore, while the emergent movement has seen a hike in attendance, the amount of turnover has also reached an extreme hike. All the while, traditional churches have continued to see steady growth and less turnover. It boils down to the simple fact, emergents can build a crowd, but for the most part, can't keep them because the whole Word isn't being preached and the Holy Ghost isn't allowed to move and work as He should.
| broncofan wrote: | | Our church had been singing a song (which I don't recall the name), but I had never heard it, but the words were good (not overly "preachy"), but still a good message. Ironically, yesterday, I found out it was Bon Jovi. The conservatives just refuse to listen to the intent of ministries such as yours. We are living in an age of extreme discontentment with the church because of its many failures (and yes, I know it does good too), and you have to get people in the door (or you go in the street) so you can minister to them. How many times must you need to repeat that you DO address their spiritual condition????? |
Addressing spiritual condition by giving them what they already have isn't quite the diagnosis the Word had in mind when Paul wrtoe to come out and be seperate and to submit our bodies a living sacrfice and to not be conformed to the world. Can anyone else see the church conforming to culture in order to reach people and build a crowd? We're specifically told not to do such a thing. We don't conform to culture. Culture should conform to us and the Word of God is about transforming lives from the world into lives lived in the Spirit. I'm conservative and hear the intent of these ministries clearly, and I applaud the desire to reach people, but not on a level that looks like a form of godliness but denies the power thereof. He'll need to repeatedly address things until ample answers to the challenging scriptures have been answered. Also, tell the mormons and muslims that we're in an age of extreme discontentment with church. They're growing faster than Christianity and they are all about their church.
| broncofan wrote: | | I would challenge these stalwarts of the old way to how many people have been saved in their 50 member church compared to yours. Oh, I forgot, you aren't supposed to measure are you? I wonder why that is. If their method is so successful, I would like to hear how many hundreds they have reached in the last year. |
Challenge already accepted. Already freely gave you my numbers.
| broncofan wrote: | | I have yet to hear a response to my question on another site when someone referred to the "dark chords" that are satanically inspired where I asked which notes are satanic. Obviously, I want to know which ones are satanic so I can avoid them. I assume those notes are on their Church Piano. Therefore, how can they have an instrument of the devil in their auditorium? |
I've not said anything about satanic chords, so I don't where you're getting with that.
| broncofan wrote: | | I also mentioned that "He Looked Beyond my Fault" is based upon the melody of the Irish ballad (Danny Boy). Since Danny Boy was very likely played in Irish Pubs, how dare they allow those devil inspired notes in their church. Obviously, that song needs banished from the Churches, as well as every other song Reba Rambo has written because she allowed a secular melody to be the basis of her ministry. After all, one song taints the entire ministry. |
Again, no idea what you're trying to say here. It makes no sense. No one has suggested that one song taints the entire ministry, other than Kevin who mentioned Mel Gibson's moral failure supposedly clouding the Passion of the Christ if we believe that people will be affected by authors of music and movies.
| broncofan wrote: | | I just can't believe the level of logic that people use in trying to put down a style that they don't like. It is interesting when people try to ascribe personal preference to spiritual authority. I am positive that the traditional Churches 75 years ago were appalled at the secularization brought about by Southern Gospel compared to their Hymns from the 1600 and 1700's. |
Well color me surprised too. I'm shocked at the logic for your post. So far it's nothing but assumptions, harsh words, judgmental, and a lack of knowledge to what has been said. The old churches were probably upset when Southern Gospel came in because it was different, but they wouldn't have any grounds to stand on considering the songs were "Gospel." That's why it wasn't such an issue.
| broncofan wrote: | | Bethovan was considered a maverick because of the different style he brought compared to his predacessors. |
It's "Beethoven." What a maverick! He wasn't attempting to lead people to Christ with his music either.
| broncofan wrote: | | I would really like to see a rebuttal to my argument. |
Glad I could oblige you.
| broncofan wrote: | | Please explain which notes are satanically inspired. How do you allow those on your church piano? More importantly, which scripture passage addresses which notes are inspired of the devil? If the Bible doesn't address it, how do you spiritualize it? I'm serious. |
I'm serious too. I don't know where your post comes from. I've not read anything in this thread about satanic notes. This thread is long enough. Why don't you start another thread with that question and go from there. I don't mean that sarcastically, but seriously start another thread. I would be interested to hear responses. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1882
3/6/07 11:12 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Hey Guys, let's call a truce here. |
Telecaster |
| broncofan wrote: | | Did the New Testament Church have offering plates, pews, ORGANS, electric guitars, air conditioning. For that matter, did they even have a building? |
Do you really not know the answer to those questions?
| broncofan wrote: | | I seem to recall they met in houses and caves. |
They met anywhere they could meet without being thrown in jail. You're right.
| broncofan wrote: | | I grew up in an area with a lot of Church Of Christ. Their reasoning for no musical instruments in Church was that it wasn't mentioned in the New Testament. Your argument seems to be right in line with them. |
You're really on a roll here. Maybe you should read the posts before you respond. My response was that the reasoning behind everything done in church in the NT and today comes from scripture. Notice I didn't quote a scripture that said "Thou shalt wear suits to church" but I did mention one saying that we are to give our best to God. Thus, people began wearing suits as to give their best. By the way, Psalms kills the Church of Christ argument dead. My argument persay is simply that if church is to be about God, should we not orchestrate it in such a way that coincides with the Word of God which is a representation of who God is? If you can say no to that question, you really should rethink your calling brother.
| broncofan wrote: | | Otherwise, you need to sell your building, give the money to poor and operate precisely as the they did at that time. |
But then I couldn't play Bon Jovi and have Starbucks.
| broncofan wrote: | | Would not doing their "best" also include the items I mentioned above as well as doing their "best" to reach the lost? Where do you draw the line between what is specifically mentioned versus what you try to extrapolate and say that the things you agree with are based upon such and such? |
If you'll read my posts, I've expressed many times where I draw the line and where I see the Word drawing the line. Don't be lazy. Go back and find them. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1882
3/6/07 11:20 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Hey Guys, let's call a truce here. |
broncofan |
| COGCharlie wrote: | Broncofan,
I will directly answer your question because you don't seem to get the questions we are posing. Is their a chord that is satanic? Of course not. That is a ridiculous question and a straw man. You, my brother, have missed the point of the last 9 pages. The issue is not whether a specific melody or chord is sinful, it is what the lyrical accompaniment with the chord and the singer that is represents. For example, I asked why Kevin didn't introduce beer. I am a hardcore conservative and I believe drinking is wrong for various reasons. However, I cannot quote a scripture that says, "Thou shalt not drink beer." Does that mean I cannot discuss and debate it to show you it is wrong? You tell me, is it wrong to drink beer? I believe there is scriptural evidence to infer that is is wrong for a christian to abstain from anything that could be construed as sinful. So, then, I would use the same logic with secular rock music. It isn't the chord in the music, it is the promotion of a lifestyle when you deem it acceptable, as a leader in the christian church, to listen to and accept a worldly lifestyle that they lead.
Someone mentioned they played Aerosmith at a church service. So, would the chords and melodies of such a song that they sing be bad? Of course not. Would you inviting them in and saying that they are good role models for Christians to follow be an acceptable action as a pastor of a church? Well, I think not. They represent all that the Bible preaches against. So, if you are promoting their work, their music (with lyrics) you are inferring that it is ok to listen to them outside of church and to mimic them in life. After all, if Pastor does it, and even brings it to church, then what harm is there in doing it at home? Surely if they were bad people Pastor wouldn't promote them to us in God's House of all places?
If that argument doesn't stand, then you can, and should, introduce beer into your services. You can have larger crowds. As long as you can control it getting out of hand to the point of drunkenness, then you are gold. If you cant, then you shouldn't have beer. I would say the same with rock bands with lifestyles that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others preached against. If you cant control ultimately what the partaker of sin will do, then why introduce even a little bit? Why take a chance of bringing that into God's house to ordain their lifestyle?
Lastly, you don't know what I do. I didn't say anything about being a pastor of a church of 50 or a church of 2000...nor will I inform you of that because it does not pertain to this discussion. The size of your congregation has nothing to do with whether you employ worldly tactics to grow your crowds. If I wanted 50,000 in a stadium I could do it with the restraints thrown off of me too. So, I imagine, with that being said, you do not believe Jesus when He said you will be hated and persecuted. If you are striving to be liked and accepted by the world, then you, my brother, have got to look at your works. |
It would be nice if you would would have read my post before you responded. I specifically mentioned the reference to the "dark chords" were from ANOTHER post. But, I thought the logic (or lack thereof) was similar. However, I agree with you on as to the issue being what the lyrics are, not the underlying chord, chord progression, or specific notes. That was my point as well. I was referencing the "dark chords" issue because I thought the theory behind the supposed logic was similar. I DO know you did not state that, and neither did I imply such.
Regarding the size of the crowds, there have been mulitple posts that alluded to the fact that drawing the crowds was not the issue and they seemed to be proud of their small following. I agree the size of the crowds isn't the issue per se, except if your methods (and not you specifically) results in an attedance of 50, then the potential number of people to reach the message is greatly diminished compared to a group of 1,000's.
_________________
broncofan |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 586
3/6/07 11:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
broncofan |
| Telecaster wrote: | | broncofan wrote: | | Kevin, I don't think you get it with the people that disagree with you. Obviously, it is much more important to them to preach to 50 people (perhaps 95% of them already saved) and stick to their old method of doing things than to preach to 1000, and for arguments sake, say only 20% are saved. |
It's amazing how the emergent mindset and those who support it have constantly over this 10 page thread assumed that those who choose not to allow such stuff in church are only reaching 50 people. So that you will stand corrected bronco, my church is a church of over 500 people will regular ministry activities and events scheduled weekly. Evangelism takes place daily and we've seen God do a great work in our midst and the church is experiencing growth and the power of God. We're seeing new converts on a regular basis. Just in the past 2 weeks alone, we've seen 15 salvations. Check your assumptions at the door before you post next time.
| broncofan wrote: | | After all, what are those 800 doing in Church anyway? Church is for Christians isn't it? How dare those sinners come in the doors. I believe the odds are those people have been preaching to 50 people their whole ministry and 20 years from now they will be preaching to 10 (because the other 40 have died or left). But, they stuck to their principles of only wanting people in Church that are already Christians. |
Again another unfounded assumption. Our churches are growing and the only principles being stuck to our those found in the Word of God which can't be refuted by you, me, or anyone for that matter. When the Word can be used to prove my methods wrong, then so be it. Until that time, the Word proves the majority of emergent methods to be wrong.
| broncofan wrote: | | I say this as a person that prefers hymnal to Christian Rock any day of the week, and I enjoy a lot of the Contemporary Christian and believe a blend is the best way for (MOST) churches. However, they absolutely do not get it (and apparently they don't care either) that your purpose is NOT to reach people like me (and that is OK), as the majority of Churches are trying to get people like me. You are trying to reach those that the traditional Church has not reached. (That does not mean the traditional Church cannot reach them, but for whatever reason, they have been a dismal failure). |
Again assuming without facts. Where's the wisdom brother? Our churches are reaching out to sinners of course. If Christians want to come in, so be it, but the Word is clear on what our commission is and we are accomplishing that. We get it completely. Maybe it's you who doesn't. Also, the traditional church has been far from a failure. 85% of new converts say they joined a church because doctrine was clearly preached. 75% said they joined a church because truth was preached and the power to live a changed and different life was exposed. Only 10% said that music ministry had anything to do with their reasoning behind joining the church. So for all the energy used to find secular songs the sinners can relate to, even though we're supposed to be relating them to Christ, the majority didn't come in and stay in the church because of the music. Furthermore, while the emergent movement has seen a hike in attendance, the amount of turnover has also reached an extreme hike. All the while, traditional churches have continued to see steady growth and less turnover. It boils down to the simple fact, emergents can build a crowd, but for the most part, can't keep them because the whole Word isn't being preached and the Holy Ghost isn't allowed to move and work as He should.
| broncofan wrote: | | Our church had been singing a song (which I don't recall the name), but I had never heard it, but the words were good (not overly "preachy"), but still a good message. Ironically, yesterday, I found out it was Bon Jovi. The conservatives just refuse to listen to the intent of ministries such as yours. We are living in an age of extreme discontentment with the church because of its many failures (and yes, I know it does good too), and you have to get people in the door (or you go in the street) so you can minister to them. How many times must you need to repeat that you DO address their spiritual condition????? |
Addressing spiritual condition by giving them what they already have isn't quite the diagnosis the Word had in mind when Paul wrtoe to come out and be seperate and to submit our bodies a living sacrfice and to not be conformed to the world. Can anyone else see the church conforming to culture in order to reach people and build a crowd? We're specifically told not to do such a thing. We don't conform to culture. Culture should conform to us and the Word of God is about transforming lives from the world into lives lived in the Spirit. I'm conservative and hear the intent of these ministries clearly, and I applaud the desire to reach people, but not on a level that looks like a form of godliness but denies the power thereof. He'll need to repeatedly address things until ample answers to the challenging scriptures have been answered. Also, tell the mormons and muslims that we're in an age of extreme discontentment with church. They're growing faster than Christianity and they are all about their church.
| broncofan wrote: | | I would challenge these stalwarts of the old way to how many people have been saved in their 50 member church compared to yours. Oh, I forgot, you aren't supposed to measure are you? I wonder why that is. If their method is so successful, I would like to hear how many hundreds they have reached in the last year. |
Challenge already accepted. Already freely gave you my numbers.
| broncofan wrote: | | I have yet to hear a response to my question on another site when someone referred to the "dark chords" that are satanically inspired where I asked which notes are satanic. Obviously, I want to know which ones are satanic so I can avoid them. I assume those notes are on their Church Piano. Therefore, how can they have an instrument of the devil in their auditorium? |
I've not said anything about satanic chords, so I don't where you're getting with that.
| broncofan wrote: | | I also mentioned that "He Looked Beyond my Fault" is based upon the melody of the Irish ballad (Danny Boy). Since Danny Boy was very likely played in Irish Pubs, how dare they allow those devil inspired notes in their church. Obviously, that song needs banished from the Churches, as well as every other song Reba Rambo has written because she allowed a secular melody to be the basis of her ministry. After all, one song taints the entire ministry. |
Again, no idea what you're trying to say here. It makes no sense. No one has suggested that one song taints the entire ministry, other than Kevin who mentioned Mel Gibson's moral failure supposedly clouding the Passion of the Christ if we believe that people will be affected by authors of music and movies.
| broncofan wrote: | | I just can't believe the level of logic that people use in trying to put down a style that they don't like. It is interesting when people try to ascribe personal preference to spiritual authority. I am positive that the traditional Churches 75 years ago were appalled at the secularization brought about by Southern Gospel compared to their Hymns from the 1600 and 1700's. |
Well color me surprised too. I'm shocked at the logic for your post. So far it's nothing but assumptions, harsh words, judgmental, and a lack of knowledge to what has been said. The old churches were probably upset when Southern Gospel came in because it was different, but they wouldn't have any grounds to stand on considering the songs were "Gospel." That's why it wasn't such an issue.
| broncofan wrote: | | Bethovan was considered a maverick because of the different style he brought compared to his predacessors. |
It's "Beethoven." What a maverick! He wasn't attempting to lead people to Christ with his music either.
| broncofan wrote: | | I would really like to see a rebuttal to my argument. |
Glad I could oblige you.
| broncofan wrote: | | Please explain which notes are satanically inspired. How do you allow those on your church piano? More importantly, which scripture passage addresses which notes are inspired of the devil? If the Bible doesn't address it, how do you spiritualize it? I'm serious. |
I'm serious too. I don't know where your post comes from. I've not read anything in this thread about satanic notes. This thread is long enough. Why don't you start another thread with that question and go from there. I don't mean that sarcastically, but seriously start another thread. I would be interested to hear responses. |
I SINCERLY commend you for your success. Please find a quote from me that said or implied that the only means to reaching the lost was via the emergent methodology? You are also assuming I am an Emergent, I consider myself to be in the middle. I see good points on both sides. Again, who is assuming? I simply said that I see their point and that they are trying to reach people that (By and large) the traditional Church has not reached. I am GLAD yours is working, but do you SERIOUSLY think the majority (or ANYWHERE NEAR) a large number of churches are succeeding? The largest Church in our state probably has less than 60 per week. Is that a resounding success???? I don't think so. I realize there are Churches are thriving, particularly in the south, but by and large the COG's are dying in the US, or at least in the West. If you don't believe it, come visit. My point of the traditional churches that are not reaching the lost is specifically the small churches. I am glad your church is reaching the lost, but surely you don't think the vast majority of the COG/COGOP churches in the US is succeeding?
My point is that another church in your city could reach those that will refuse to go to your church with your methods. That is GREAT for the ones you are reaching, but what about the ones you are not. It seems you would rather criticize those that try different methods because you don't like the methods. The style isn't for me personally either. But, I think they have their place, something you seem refuse to accept. How do you know Kevin's church and others are not changing lives, just as yours is? It must be nice to have a monopoly on ways to minister.
Regarding satanic chords, if you would have bothered to read my post, you would have seen that I said I got it from ANOTHER Post. How clear is that? But, the thought process is similar. If it comes from the World, then it is Satanic. IE notes used in secular songs cannot be done in Church. Again, that stemmed largely from ANOTHER post. Regarding the issue on Dottie Rambo, again, how can you sit there and not understand that some have directly said that just because a group has a song that has Christian lyrics, that if other songs they did are not, then you shouldn't play any of them. I think someone mentioned Justin Timberlake. If you take that LOGICALLY, then the same applies for Dottie Rambo. I will admit I don't recall if the Timberlake reference was on this post or another, and I will NOT go back and read the 9 previous pages to see where it came from.
Are you seriously contending that the pentacostal Churches in the US are thriving, aside from the AG?
_________________
broncofan |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 586
3/6/07 11:58 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Telecaster |
broncofan |
quote="Telecaster"] | broncofan wrote: | | Did the New Testament Church have offering plates, pews, ORGANS, electric guitars, air conditioning. For that matter, did they even have a building? |
Do you really not know the answer to those questions?
I was being sarcastic. Who is being harsh and judgmental?
_________________
broncofan |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 586
3/6/07 12:04 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
juice box |
Have you guys not figured out after 10 pages that you will never see Eye to eye on this   
_________________
One Love, One God, and Only One Way
 Marching on for BV his legend will never die |
Friendly Face
Posts: 439
3/6/07 12:52 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Charlie Metz |
| juice box wrote: | | Have you guys not figured out after 10 pages that you will never see Eye to eye on this |
I am still awaiting a response to my questions.
_________________
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt. 7:13-14 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 705
3/6/07 12:56 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Telecaster |
Telecaster |
| broncofan wrote: | quote="Telecaster"] | broncofan wrote: | | Did the New Testament Church have offering plates, pews, ORGANS, electric guitars, air conditioning. For that matter, did they even have a building? |
Do you really not know the answer to those questions?
I was being sarcastic. Who is being harsh and judgmental? |
I realized that, but your sarcasm was in light of trying to make a point that didn't need to be made, which is why I called you on it. Obviously the church of the NT didn't have the things you mentioned, but I believe if they would have, they would have utilized them as it pertains to scriptural doctrine.
To address your other post, I did bother to read that you said the dark chord thing was in another post, not another thread. That's why I suggested you start another thread.
Again, if you read my response, I never accused you of being emergent. My words were the emergents, and those that support them. So if you fit in that then fine. But I didn't call you an emergent.
Also, I will agree with you that Christianity as a whole is in trouble. We do need to change the paradigm of how we reach people as a whole. I'll even agree that the majority of churches are reaching less than what they could. I also agree that we should do anything we can to reach people. Are we still on the same page, because here is where I differ from the emergents, not criticize, but differ.
I agree the goal is to reach everyone we can, but Christ did not give us a mandate to just go reach them. We have to disciple them. We have to teach them the Word and how to live by the Spirit. When I read the scriptures, the Word gives us direction on how to witness and how to reach the World. It also gives us directions on how to live our lives after we're converted. It tells us to be seperate and to come out from among the world. And this is where I can't follow the emergent thinking, because they seem to be more about conforming church to culture so as to entice people into church rather than conforming culture to church. When the methods of reaching people become secondary to the mandate to reach people then we've got things out of order. We must first understand our purpose and our purpose is not just to compel them to come. That's taking one scripture and allowing it to supercede the Word when in fact it's made to coincide with the Word.
Think about how fast the NT church grew and how fast other country's churches grow. And before it's dismissed that this is America and so forth, hear me out. They grew in the hardest of conditions, under the greatest scrutiny and persecution, and grew while preaching conviction and bold in your face truth. There was no worldly influence to attract people. The Spirit of God did that for them. This same paradigm will work today. God's not changed and His Spirit still convicts and draws people to the heart of God. Churches spend so much money trying to figure out ways to draw a crowd when in the NT and early church, God drew the crowd. Maybe it's time we start spending money on how to disciple and train and evangelize the Word rather than simply put up Starbucks and bring in secular bands or show unedited movies. And that's my point that can not be grasped by the emergents. It's been 10 pages, and still no scriptural questions are answered and the same responses are given in defense.
Yes we live in America and our culture is different, but it's different because the church has continually bowed down to it. Where was the church when prayer was taken from school? Where was the church in Roe v. Wade? Where is the church in the battle of homosexuality? The churches in America have always had this emergent philosophy before the movement came on the scene. The churches of America have been trying to pacify the masses for some time now and look where it's got us. It's time for the church to be the church and to preach the Word, not what tickles people's ears, not what makes them feel good and comfortable, not what allows them to stay in their lifestyle, and not what will entertain and draw crowds. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1882
3/6/07 1:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Telecaster |
Charlie Metz |
| Telecaster wrote: | | broncofan wrote: | quote="Telecaster"] | broncofan wrote: | | Did the New Testament Church have offering plates, pews, ORGANS, electric guitars, air conditioning. For that matter, did they even have a building? |
Do you really not know the answer to those questions?
I was being sarcastic. Who is being harsh and judgmental? |
I realized that, but your sarcasm was in light of trying to make a point that didn't need to be made, which is why I called you on it. Obviously the church of the NT didn't have the things you mentioned, but I believe if they would have, they would have utilized them as it pertains to scriptural doctrine.
To address your other post, I did bother to read that you said the dark chord thing was in another post, not another thread. That's why I suggested you start another thread.
Again, if you read my response, I never accused you of being emergent. My words were the emergents, and those that support them. So if you fit in that then fine. But I didn't call you an emergent.
Also, I will agree with you that Christianity as a whole is in trouble. We do need to change the paradigm of how we reach people as a whole. I'll even agree that the majority of churches are reaching less than what they could. I also agree that we should do anything we can to reach people. Are we still on the same page, because here is where I differ from the emergents, not criticize, but differ.
I agree the goal is to reach everyone we can, but Christ did not give us a mandate to just go reach them. We have to disciple them. We have to teach them the Word and how to live by the Spirit. When I read the scriptures, the Word gives us direction on how to witness and how to reach the World. It also gives us directions on how to live our lives after we're converted. It tells us to be seperate and to come out from among the world. And this is where I can't follow the emergent thinking, because they seem to be more about conforming church to culture so as to entice people into church rather than conforming culture to church. When the methods of reaching people become secondary to the mandate to reach people then we've got things out of order. We must first understand our purpose and our purpose is not just to compel them to come. That's taking one scripture and allowing it to supercede the Word when in fact it's made to coincide with the Word.
Think about how fast the NT church grew and how fast other country's churches grow. And before it's dismissed that this is America and so forth, hear me out. They grew in the hardest of conditions, under the greatest scrutiny and persecution, and grew while preaching conviction and bold in your face truth. There was no worldly influence to attract people. The Spirit of God did that for them. This same paradigm will work today. God's not changed and His Spirit still convicts and draws people to the heart of God. Churches spend so much money trying to figure out ways to draw a crowd when in the NT and early church, God drew the crowd. Maybe it's time we start spending money on how to disciple and train and evangelize the Word rather than simply put up Starbucks and bring in secular bands or show unedited movies. And that's my point that can not be grasped by the emergents. It's been 10 pages, and still no scriptural questions are answered and the same responses are given in defense.
Yes we live in America and our culture is different, but it's different because the church has continually bowed down to it. Where was the church when prayer was taken from school? Where was the church in Roe v. Wade? Where is the church in the battle of homosexuality? The churches in America have always had this emergent philosophy before the movement came on the scene. The churches of America have been trying to pacify the masses for some time now and look where it's got us. It's time for the church to be the church and to preach the Word, not what tickles people's ears, not what makes them feel good and comfortable, not what allows them to stay in their lifestyle, and not what will entertain and draw crowds. |
Preach on brother...preach on. We need more watchmen. We need more people that are willing to call sin sin. We need more people who will tell the people they need to be separate... Preach on, preach on.
_________________
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt. 7:13-14
Last edited by Charlie Metz on 3/6/07 1:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 705
3/6/07 1:33 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Telecaster |
Charlie Metz |
I love you all....emergent or not.
_________________
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt. 7:13-14 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 705
3/6/07 1:35 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Telecaster |
broncofan |
Finally, you've said something I agree a lot with. However, being in the middle, it appears to me that the emergents are more forgiving toward you than your side is toward them. That is another reason I stood up for them. Since I started to attend, what I now understand, is an emergent church, I see what this particular church stands for. It DOES reach and change lives and they DO disciple both in the Message and in the life groups. I don't think I've read from them that "you" must do as they do, but it certainly appears to me that your side does say that what they are doing is wrong and therefore, they must do as you do. I know at my church, the mission is not to see how many people they can get from other Churches. Rather, it is specifically to reach the unchurched. I've seen MANY small Churches where their attitude is almost you must be a Christian first in order to come to my Church. I am truly glad your church in reaching in traditional ways, and I emphatically do not think it cannot be done that way. The problem with most Churches I've seen where they say they are traditional is it equates with giving lip service to tradition, but not the thing that made the traditional Church successful to begin and that was prayer, fasting, study, and dedication.
I believe it was you that mentioned only 10% of the converts came because of music. I'm glad to hear that, surprised, but glad. Personally, I am MOST often affected by (the word) in music, my ministry is music, so I internalize that aspect more than the average person. Surprisingly, this (emergent) church has challenged me more spiritually by their message than any traditional Church has ever done (on a consistent basis). Even more surprising when I do not really care for the music. This is an about face for me. Therefore, when I hear people critizing emergents because they are watering down the message, I am offended. While I cannot speak for all emergents, I can only say what I have personally observed. However, I have never heard anything from Kevin, or any of the other emergents that lead me to think their ministry does otherwise. Even if some emergents are as you describe, why demonize the people on this board whose heart IS in the right place? Would you want to be defined by the off the wall pentacoastals that we all know exist? I don't think so.
My whole point is that you have your method and they have theirs. I think you should be encouraging them because they are reaching those that either your church is not. I DO understand that the early Church achieved tremendous things and they did not water the gospel. But, who has said the emergents on this board HAVE watered down the gospel? They simply approach it differently.
Personally, I DO prefer a mixture of red back hymnal and contemporary. Many of the pastors today think we have to go all out contemporary and while that is good for some congregations, that does NOT mean it is good for all. I have a problem when contemporary is shoved down the throat of the seniors of the church. I don't know where you stand on this, and I understand I am making an assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised if you don't lean toward contemporary worship. (Don't shoot me if I guessed wrong here). I know of a Church, I believe in Chicago, that went from start up to 3,000 in a couple years and they did it entirely with hymns. I'm not advocating that either. But, my point is there are many different ways to reach people. When people come in and shove contemporary down the throat of existing members, that is very similar if the emergents shoved down your throat that you MUST be emergent. I don't see the difference, unless you are saying the emergent style is not Godly.
I love Southern Gospel, but I am not so narrow minded that I believe that Christian Rap and Christian Rock is not reaching people. It isn't for me, but that doesn't make it sin. Likewise, I don't understand why those that don't like having the (appropriate) secular songs in Church cannot accept that the emergent style simply isn't for them, or not for their congregation, but in other areas, it can and will work and IS Godly? I really don't understand that. The song I mentioned by Bon Jovi had a christian message. Lighter, yes, But, since when is "The Old Gospel Ship" theologically deep?
Have you attended emergent services to see for yourself if they are actually challenging people with a better lifestyle?
_________________
broncofan |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 586
3/6/07 2:36 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Telecaster |
Telecaster |
| broncofan wrote: | | Finally, you've said something I agree a lot with. However, being in the middle, it appears to me that the emergents are more forgiving toward you than your side is toward them. |
I understand why you would say that. Any animosity by the emergents towards us traditionalists, I suppose we've become known as that term now for this discussion, is usually in response to our criticism of their ways. That doesn't excuse it however. But regardless, we're not viewed as forgiving though because the way we see it, these movements are doing about as much to hurt Christianity as it is to help. To see churches representing Christ, yet embracing the world's culture and allowing it to conform the church is offending to me, so that's maybe why we're not as forgiving. Not only does it offend me, but I believe it's an offense to God.
| broncofan wrote: | | Since I started to attend, what I now understand, is an emergent church, I see what this particular church stands for. It DOES reach and change lives and they DO disciple both in the Message and in the life groups. I don't think I've read from them that "you" must do as they do, but it certainly appears to me that your side does say that what they are doing is wrong and therefore, they must do as you do. I know at my church, the mission is not to see how many people they can get from other Churches. Rather, it is specifically to reach the unchurched. I've seen MANY small Churches where their attitude is almost you must be a Christian first in order to come to my Church. |
I'm glad that your emergent church reaches people and people are changed. In my book, that's always going to be the exception to the rule. I view it as Jesus said to the disciples when they asked Him if they should stop someone preaching about Him that didn't truly know Him like they did. He said no, at least he's being preached. Believe me, as much as I dislike and feel the emergent movement is wrong, I'll support an emergent before I support a mormon. The reason you hear that we don't have to do like them from them is because they operate unto themselves in most cases. They are usually independent churches operating on their own accord. Most traditionalists still minister under the cover and authority of a denomination. It is our goal as a member of that denomination to promote and indoctrinate. Other churches don't have to do things just like I do it or the next church does it, but I do want them to do it scripturally, and not just based on one scripture here and there. As I've said before, our mission is to reach the unchurched as well. Unfortunately, I too have seen many small churches that only want, as one emergent pointed out, their four and no more. It's a shame too.
| broncofan wrote: | | I am truly glad your church in reaching in traditional ways, and I emphatically do not think it cannot be done that way. The problem with most Churches I've seen where they say they are traditional is it equates with giving lip service to tradition, but not the thing that made the traditional Church successful to begin and that was prayer, fasting, study, and dedication. |
And that my friend will preach all day long!
| broncofan wrote: | | I believe it was you that mentioned only 10% of the converts came because of music. I'm glad to hear that, surprised, but glad. Personally, I am MOST often affected by (the word) in music, my ministry is music, so I internalize that aspect more than the average person. Surprisingly, this (emergent) church has challenged me more spiritually by their message than any traditional Church has ever done (on a consistent basis). Even more surprising when I do not really care for the music. This is an about face for me. |
An amazing book, "Surprising Insights from the Unchurched" by Thom S. Rainer.
| broncofan wrote: | | Therefore, when I hear people critizing emergents because they are watering down the message, I am offended. While I cannot speak for all emergents, I can only say what I have personally observed. |
The way I see it though is if you admittingly cannot speak for all emergents, you can't be offended that emergents are criticized for watering messages down. There are plenty self proclaimed emergents that proudly talk of their methods and practices and they are extremely watered down.
| broncofan wrote: | | However, I have never heard anything from Kevin, or any of the other emergents that lead me to think their ministry does otherwise. Even if some emergents are as you describe, why demonize the people on this board whose heart IS in the right place? Would you want to be defined by the off the wall pentacoastals that we all know exist? I don't think so. |
What I have heard from those on this board is a church embracing culture which to me is against the Word. I don't demonize them by any means, but I definitely do not agree and believe their ministries can be considered tainted by the world, thus lacking in spiritual depthness. You can't have both if you read the Word correctly. No, I don't appreciate being identified with the off the wall pentecostals, so I do my part to show how I'm different. Thus far, I can't see the difference in those who have risen up on here. I don't mean that rudely, but I'm just stating an honest opinion.
| broncofan wrote: | | Personally, I DO prefer a mixture of red back hymnal and contemporary. Many of the pastors today think we have to go all out contemporary and while that is good for some congregations, that does NOT mean it is good for all. I have a problem when contemporary is shoved down the throat of the seniors of the church. |
I also prefer a mixture of songs. I too hate it when the older saints of churches are made to feel insignificant and that they don't matter. That eats me up.
| broncofan wrote: | | I don't know where you stand on this, and I understand I am making an assumption, but I wouldn't be surprised if you don't lean toward contemporary worship. (Don't shoot me if I guessed wrong here). |
I won't shoot you only because you added your disclaimer, but you're definitely wrong. That's where I get upset the most however. Just as you say all emergents are the same, and I would be willing to agree to an extent, all traditionalists aren't the same. Just because ministers choose to stand strictly by the Word, doesn't mean that all of us are againt witnessing and evangelizing and that we preach hemline and hairline, clothesline theology. In leading praise and worship, some of the stuff we do ranges from Michael Gungor, Israel Houghton, Lincoln Brewster, Skillet, Paul Colman, Paul Laboche, Chris Tomlin, David Crowder and Matt Redman to name a few. On the same scale, I do the old Hillsong stuff, Vineyard stuff, Convention book choruses, and yes even hymnals.
| broncofan wrote: | | But, my point is there are many different ways to reach people. |
Correct, but all should be scriptural.
| broncofan wrote: | | I love Southern Gospel, but I am not so narrow minded that I believe that Christian Rap and Christian Rock is not reaching people. It isn't for me, but that doesn't make it sin. Likewise, I don't understand why those that don't like having the (appropriate) secular songs in Church cannot accept that the emergent style simply isn't for them, or not for their congregation, but in other areas, it can and will work and IS Godly? I really don't understand that. The song I mentioned by Bon Jovi had a christian message. Lighter, yes, But, since when is "The Old Gospel Ship" theologically deep? |
It's not about theologically deep stuff brother. It's more or less about a lost focus on praise and worship. Music in a church is to be uplifting and an offering of praise unto God. Secular songs are not written for such. To derive the message thus oking the song to me is shameful considering there are tons of amazing praise and worship songs and artists that are more talented, definitely anointed, and have people, even sinners, enjoying their music. Also, the fact that a secular song is sung does promote the band, which promotes the music, which promotes the industry, which promotes the culture. i don't care what Kevin says. If you play a song that people enjoy in church or a regular place, they will download it or buy the album. To me that's the church doing the job of Satan and opening doors of temptation. Some of these artists have filthy songs and colaborate on filthy albums. It's an open door to their lyrics, music, and lifestyle.
| broncofan wrote: | | Have you attended emergent services to see for yourself if they are actually challenging people with a better lifestyle? |
Actually yes, I worked in a church for over a year with an emergent pastor and I've first hand witnessed the emptiness of the lifestyle. We had numbers but the lack of spiritual conviction and foundation kept turnover high. There was no spiritual depth in the people unless they were mature Christians for awhile and had a rooted relationship before joining the church. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1882
3/6/07 3:39 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Telecaster |
broncofan |
We will agree to disagree. I still don't think the emergents on this board do not work toward trying to get people to change their lives. You're biased by the exposure you had with emergents and so am I. 
I attended an AG for 5 years that eventually moved to all Contemporary. While their message was OK, I seriously questioned whether lives were being changed there either. I sarcastically called it "Sunday morning Pep Rally". Lots of excitement and swaying to the music, but I didn't see any difference in their youth from the highly materialistic upscale kids in my daughters High School. She also felt it was shallow. That biased me even more against Contemporary Christian. I have mellowed somewhat on that now, and do acknowledge that much of it is good. But, I had such a distaste between the association of Contemporary and shallow that it took me a good while to appreciate it. (25 years ago I loved the David Meece, The Archers, Imperials and other Contemporary groups of the time, but I've moved back closer to my roots).
Although I can see your concern with the approach of some emergents, I also don't think Hell Fire and Brimstone without the balance of the love of God is effective long term either. Good grief, my father was a hell fire brimstone preacher. I've seen people get saved because they got the "hell" scared out of them, but most didn't last. On the other hand, I also know a lot of people believe if you are 51% good, you will go to heaven. I still fight with my background that only perfect people will make it to heaven as their is "no" sin in heaven. I certainly don't ascribe that all roads lead to heaven, but I do think there are different ways to reach people. Not all people have my background and not all will be reached as I am. Again, I totally agree that the early Church did not mince words. However, I also know that Jesus did some pretty untraditional methods as he actually spoke to prostitutes and samaritans, which I am sure was considered just as sacreligous in his day as witnessnessing in bars or secular music in church is today.
_________________
broncofan |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 586
3/6/07 4:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Telecaster |
Charlie Metz |
| broncofan wrote: |
Although I can see your concern with the approach of some emergents, I also don't think Hell Fire and Brimstone without the balance of the love of God is effective long term either. Good grief, my father was a hell fire brimstone preacher. I've seen people get saved because they got the "hell" scared out of them, but most didn't last. |
I believe a good healthy balance is needed. One thing I see a lot of in the seeker movement and emergent movements today, and creeping into the "traditionalists" as you call us, is this love only theology. People won't know why they are saved unless they know what they are saved from. God is a loving God, but He is also a just and judging God. If you don't go to heaven, well, you are going to hell; and people need to know that.
| Quote: | | On the other hand, I also know a lot of people believe if you are 51% good, you will go to heaven. I still fight with my background that only perfect people will make it to heaven as their is "no" sin in heaven. |
You think there is sin in heaven? The way you put quotations around no makes me think you believe that there is sin in the holy living place of God.
| Quote: | | I certainly don't ascribe that all roads lead to heaven, but I do think there are different ways to reach people. Not all people have my background and not all will be reached as I am. Again, I totally agree that the early Church did not mince words. However, I also know that Jesus did some pretty untraditional methods as he actually spoke to prostitutes and samaritans, which I am sure was considered just as sacreligous in his day as witnessnessing in bars or secular music in church is today. |
You can reach people in various ways like you say...but God, in His word, didn't give you the freedom to use the world to reach them. In other words, you cannot have one foot in the world and one fit in heaven and expect to reach someone. Also, Jesus didn't water down anything or try to explain it away. As a matter of fact, He was asked by His disciples why He spoke in "riddles." He spoke in parables all the time so those whose time it was to hear would hear.
_________________
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt. 7:13-14 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 705
3/6/07 4:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Telecaster |
Telecaster |
| broncofan wrote: | We will agree to disagree. I still don't think the emergents on this board do not work toward trying to get people to change their lives. You're biased by the exposure you had with emergents and so am I.
I attended an AG for 5 years that eventually moved to all Contemporary. While their message was OK, I seriously questioned whether lives were being changed there either. I sarcastically called it "Sunday morning Pep Rally". Lots of excitement and swaying to the music, but I didn't see any difference in their youth from the highly materialistic upscale kids in my daughters High School. She also felt it was shallow. That biased me even more against Contemporary Christian. I have mellowed somewhat on that now, and do acknowledge that much of it is good. But, I had such a distaste between the association of Contemporary and shallow that it took me a good while to appreciate it. (25 years ago I loved the David Meece, The Archers, Imperials and other Contemporary groups of the time, but I've moved back closer to my roots).
Although I can see your concern with the approach of some emergents, I also don't think Hell Fire and Brimstone without the balance of the love of God is effective long term either. Good grief, my father was a hell fire brimstone preacher. I've seen people get saved because they got the "hell" scared out of them, but most didn't last. On the other hand, I also know a lot of people believe if you are 51% good, you will go to heaven. I still fight with my background that only perfect people will make it to heaven as their is "no" sin in heaven. I certainly don't ascribe that all roads lead to heaven, but I do think there are different ways to reach people. Not all people have my background and not all will be reached as I am. Again, I totally agree that the early Church did not mince words. However, I also know that Jesus did some pretty untraditional methods as he actually spoke to prostitutes and samaritans, which I am sure was considered just as sacreligous in his day as witnessnessing in bars or secular music in church is today. |
I understand your points, and we'll have to agree to disagree. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1882
3/6/07 4:34 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| COG Evangel |
Charlie Metz |
There are a few pieces written in the COG Evangel for March 2007 that deal with music and its evolution in the church. It talks about hymns vs contemporary and other things. Great pieces about reaching a new generation. However, I did not read anything in there at all about using secular or worldly music...just changing the styles... Thoughts?
_________________
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt. 7:13-14 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 705
3/6/07 10:41 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| .. oh that old school JESUS .. |
Rafael D Martinez |
No secret. Pastor, turn the CD player off and read the Bible to find out:
| KevinLloyd wrote: |
3. The age old ? of WWJD. All I can see in the bible, and I mean, maybe I'm looking in the wrong place or you guys know a secret about him that I don't. What Jesus did is hang out w/ SINNERS. He hung out w/ all of the people who drive by 12 of our churches on the way to the lake every week. They were attracted to him WAY BEFORE their life was ever changed. |
Mark 3:13-15
And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.
And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
v. 32-35
There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said,
Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Mark 14:23-25
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
The hymns they sang weren't "I'll Fly Away" or "Sunday Bloody Sunday".
They were from the Psalms.
Whoa. Singing VERSES of Scripture.
What a novel concept.
That's what Jesus would Do.
agape
rafael
_________________
www.spiritwatch.org
Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16
These are trying times. Everyone's trying something and getting caught. The Church Lady, 1987 |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7766
3/6/07 11:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: .. oh that old school JESUS .. |
Charlie Metz |
| Rafael D Martinez wrote: | No secret. Pastor, turn the CD player off and read the Bible to find out:
| KevinLloyd wrote: |
3. The age old ? of WWJD. All I can see in the bible, and I mean, maybe I'm looking in the wrong place or you guys know a secret about him that I don't. What Jesus did is hang out w/ SINNERS. He hung out w/ all of the people who drive by 12 of our churches on the way to the lake every week. They were attracted to him WAY BEFORE their life was ever changed. |
Mark 3:13-15
And he goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him.
And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
v. 32-35
There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said,
Behold my mother and my brethren!
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Mark 14:23-25
And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
The hymns they sang weren't "I'll Fly Away" or "Sunday Bloody Sunday".
They were from the Psalms.
Whoa. Singing VERSES of Scripture.
What a novel concept.
That's what Jesus would Do.
agape
rafael |
Amen.
_________________
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." Matt. 7:13-14 |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 705
3/7/07 7:22 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
