TheEvan

Wow, the "Osteentatious" link is great!

I love the really old (16th & 17th C.) Lutheran hymnody. Very cool stuff, some of it removed from antiphonal chant by only a degree or two of separation.

Allan, am I to suppose that you believe that water baptism "went out with Pentecost" or some such? If you can clarify, we can have a basis for discussion, which I greatly prefer to simply taking potshots.

An aside concerning your remarks on stained glass windows. I met a Masai "mchungaji" (pastor) who was said to be the first Masai Christian in southern Tanzania. He was saved sometime in the 70's, but had little contact with other Christians. He read the Bible in Swahili and began teaching its lessons from village to village as he walked that remote wilderness. Over the years he made his own drawings of the stories and concepts he communicated which he used to teach illiterate Masai adults as well as children. He also made drawings illustrating visions he's had which he also uses in working with his charges. The drawings are cool. Intricate in a funky folk-art sense. All the human characters are depicted (of course) as Masai people. This intelligent and gentle man has done this with no support other than the largess of his fellow Masai for over 30 years! These days the Masai I know are quite literate, at least in Masai & Swahili.

Mark, I wasn't going to join the tiff, but then you made remarks concerning England of the 1500's. Your simplistic remarks miss the struggle that had taken hold at a grassroots level throughout the UK. The sainted Sir Thomas More made it his life's mission to wipe out the English bibles of Tyndale which were flooding in from Belgium, and to arrest and try Tyndale himself, whose crime was getting the English Bible into the hands of "the ploughboy". The thing that made More's mission a losing proposition is that an English version of the Reformation had taken hold at the grassroots level and simply could not be stamped out, though he did succeed in arresting Tyndale and condemning him to burn. (Just to be clear, I do realize it was not for this 'noble' task alone that More was sainted. It was primarily because of the martyrdom he suffered for daring to refuse to annul Henry VIII's marriage.) My point is that the English reformation was not simply a struggle of the Crown against the Holy Roman Empire. Yes, that struggle happened, and many on both sides were killed. And yes, in the end more Catholics than Protestants were killed. But focusing on the political intrigue alone fails to recognize that the dissemination of Tyndale's Bible had caused revival in the heart of the average Englishman. No political authority, no matter how many killings, was going to stamp out those flames. What happened with the ploughboy when he read the scriptures for himself was quite beyond the ken and reach of any civil or religious authority. That was the essence of the true English reformation. What was the problem with people reading the Bible for themselves in their own tongue?

I very much agree, mstar.Ted's work just doesn't make into cult status for me. Bear in mind we all have our own threshold for what makes a cult. His group doesn't make onto my s-list because they talk like normal folks, they seem to welcome disagreement, they have a diverse congregation (though tending towards youngishness), and most importantly, the church submits itself to outside accountability in financial and other matters. They just believe some wacky things.

While I blanch at Ted Haggard's style and doctrine, there's nothing cultish about it. He is the personification of inclusive. He's built a big thing because he has boatlads of charisma. Now charisma can be a dangerous thing. As far as I know, he's used his ethically.

templelady, I think you've just dug in your heels at a particular spot. Of course Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the foundation. Nobody is saying He isn't. But remember that foundation is the apostles and prophets. Paul was an apostle. Followers of Paul's teaching are following Christ, for he got it "by revelation of Jesus Christ". The gospel message he received from the Lord has become the foundation of Christianity for in it is articulated the doctrine of grace. What doctrine does Peter contribute in the Bible?

Very much so, Plot. Name drop the thing. Some glassy eyed Piffle worshipper is bound to pony up big dineros to catch some second hand ether off of the Great One. (Then try to sleep at night, HAHAHAHA!)

Dangerous only to the kooks who join them. Few, outside the Moonies, ever garnered a sizeable following. Incidentally, a friend's brother in law has come to believe that he is the prophet Elijah, or at times, Jesus. If you call him on the phone he'll answer "Jesus speaking!"

I don't think that stance on the Trinity has ever been a benchmark for cult status. If it were so, the United Pentecostal Church and a host of other Pentecostal denominations would be cults. Apparently, those who define cults as being at odds with orthodoxy need a bit more than an unorthodox doctrine of the Godhead to make the cut. Since many of the cult lists of the past have listed JW's & LDS as cults, TWI would have to be down teh list a piece. Even at its largest it was small compared to them. I define a cult as being something that makes my "cult sniffer alarm" go off: They're hustling for money, they're the one true 'thang', they separate you from your family, they have extensive insider lingo, etc. Enough of that, taken together, qualifies for me. On that subjective basis, JW & LDS don't make the cut, despite from some beliefs that strike me as peculiar.

Gotta be family. The dude in the yellow tie, f'rinstance. Uncle, dad, older brother: take your pick.

This is an excellent question, What The. I grappled with it myself in the more distant past. I'll throw this out for consideration. I agree, it wasn't the size, amount or quantity. I'm not so sure there is even such a thing as size or quantity of faith, even though Jesus once said "why is your faith so small?". Remember, he also once said, "if you have faith as a mustard seed...", which he represents as something quite small. In fact, the mustard seed quote is what gave me the idea. It's a matter of "kind' or "type" of faith (and I'm not referring to Wierwille's 'Bible Kinds of Faith'). If you have a mustard seed it will produce a mustard bush, an acorn will produce an oak. I think Jesus was saying that if your faith is the right kind, it will grow the right tree & produce the right fruit. I think Jesus & Paul both made a strong case that the right kind of faith is that faith that is IN God. In other words, faith that has the Lord as its object, not the drapes, the car, the parking space, etc. That kind of faith implies a will submitted to God's and ready to do His bidding. It is just such a yielded vessel that sees God's workings in everyday life...

Pulled from its context, the idea that you'll have whatever you say (or "confess", if you like) is so demonstrably wrong I don't think I need to comment. Just a cursory reading of people's favorite "law of believing" sections, in their context. reveals that it's not about the law, what you say, or even what you believe. The common essential element is the object of faith, not the faith itself or the "operation" of it. Removing faith from its object turns it into lordless mental gymnastics.

I think these are all valid inferences that can be drawn from the scripture in Gal 3. Most, if not all of the Bibleis like this fr me...many layers of meaning that can be drawn from it. But theologically I think Wierwille got this one wrong as well. In his simplistic "hand in a glove" way of thinking, he kept missing Paul's style and the meanings conveyed in it. Paul is talking broader theological concepts here. The law was "our" (the people of God) schoolmaster unto Christ. and Paul proves that the purpose of the law was to make everybody demonstrably guilty before God so that the only remaining hope for righteousness and acceptance is the free gift of forgiveness accomplished by Christ's shed blood.

Do it!! I double dog dare ya.

Hmm, it probably varies group to group. For instance, my water baptism was done by a group that recognized other baptisms, but only of according to the formula they recognized. I'm not familiar with all "anabaptists" (quite a few today could fall under that now-archaic heading) but have some familiarity with the Mennonites. If my reading comprehension & memory were/are up to snuff (a big if!) the Mennonites recognize other adult baptisms as valid, but reject infant baptism as a thing of significance. As far as my personal experience, if I had something happen at my baptism, I'm unaware of it. But I know I do when I receive communion. Each time. I'm thinking my faith/expectations color the result on either side.

Yes, I see the difference. And I do think it significant. The anabaptists were not rebaptising. They were baptising for the first time, for they viewed infant "baptism" as a ritual at odds with scripture and logic and therefore not a baptism at all.

Honestly, I doubt there were illegalities involved. As hated as Der Veg was and is, I think somebody would have broght an action if it were so. That said, I do think he deceived Leonard, and co-opted what Leonard thought was his work as his own. But that's just my opinion, based on certain facts, though. I think the heaviest indictment is simply the intellectual dishonesty. Wierwille implied scholarship (Biblical Research and Teaching), just as an historian does by publishing a book. ALL HELL broke loose when a book by Stephen Ambrose (author of Band of Brothers, etc.) was found to have citations that were not fully and properly footnoted and sourced. He didn't claim any of it as his own research, all credit was given, he simply failed to fully and properly footnote. FOR THAT all hell broke loose and he was accused of plaigarism. When Wierwille claimed his material as Biblical Research he opened himself to having at least the lowest standards of basic scholarship applied to his work. Even on a high school level, his work fails spectacularly.

Mark, in those kind of cases I've heard it referred to as an "ordinance", along with communion, public marriage vows, etc. Its use in such instances is as you say, an outward declaration of an inner grace. Or, in the words I've heard it, a public profession of faith one has in Christ for salvation. An aside: I thought the sticking point concerning "anabaptists" and the source of their name, was their rejection of infant baptism, a perfectly reasonable position it seems to me.

I'm in Baton Rouge, Belle. The 'boyfriend' lives in new Orleans, but is staying around starkville until it is okay to return. so, no, we don't know the same people. I like Sudo's mascot better. Bulldogs are a bit homely after all...

Belle, so you're a Bulldog, eh? My sis-in-law (who now lives with us since Katrina) is seriously involved with a man whose dad is the man your stadium is named for. He tried to get her to the game last week (in a luxury suite O course) but she couldn't be bothered. Playing hard t get? Ah, women! He was supposed to come by here yesterday, but hurricane madness prevented it. His accent is nice, but not quite nearly as nice as Sudo's.

Hi Jerry, BB, et al. My 'puter connection is back up after getting knocked out for a few short days with Rita. Anyway Jerry, I was talking miracles. I don't think we have a role to play in miracles...in the sense that we cannot dictate to God what He is going to do in that department. When it's time for a miracle, He either just hauls off with one, or uses a chosen & yielded vessel to do His bidding. I still think the big point of miracles is the sign...the thing god is trying to tell us with the miracle. There are secondary blessings...to the one healed or circumstance changed, etc. But if you'll simply go through miracles listed in the Bible, you'll find that the overwhelming majority state a reason for the miracle. Frequemtly it's along the lines of "that they may know that there is a God in Israel" or the such like.

Excellent thread! I'm reading with relish. Thank you all.

Bliss, it's not necessary to research all the questions. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead you into all the truth. Don't worry about using research materials or reference books. Simply read it prayerfully, slowly, asking the Lord what He wants you to know about what you're reading this time. He has a personal curriculum with your name on it. I'll dare say he probably won't be teaching you an integrated theology that causes things to fit from cover to cover. As time goes on I trust my knowledge of the Bible less but my Lord more. Just an approach you migh find helpful