[ndigila]

Originally Posted by jasakwa

Grip let us agree that there is clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.

That's also a contentious issue. Some churches hold to the covenant Theology view (in which Christians replaced the Hebrews as God's chosen people, Christians are the new Israel), while others hold to the Dispensationalist view, which differentiates Israel and the church.

Anyway, I hope now you appreciate the conflicting views. I could bring in another interpretation which says that the prophecies in Revelation was fulfilled with the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. The only problem is all interpretations have a valid scriptural argument, depending on which approach you use.

But how do you know which approach is right? Especially when one person says that he has seen visions of Christians being persecuted during the tribulation (as in the case of the founder of the International House of Prayer) and someone else says that God has shown him Christians being raptured right before the tribulation (as in the case of the Kenyan prophet Dr Owuor)?

[lavidanor]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Currently, there is a Christian mindset that separates Christian faith and spirituality from belonging to a church, (i.e. it doesn't matter which church you attend as long as you believe in Jesus, or going to church is irrelevant, all you need is the Holy Spirit and the Bible). Is such a mindset valid or dangerous to Christianity?

Guys, let me start by making a confession. I haven't read all the postings. I read the first two pages and just perused over the others. Because of this, I may take you back in one way or the other, or I may repeat things that people have already expressed.

I will pick it from the original post.
Christian faith cannot be divorced from membership to a church. And here, as one contributor mentioned, the chuch is not defined by a building or a name to that effect. A church is an assembly of believers. So when we talk of belonging to a church, it means that one has to team up with like-minded. I may provide scriptures for this later.

The people (the church) one teams up with matters. In this, I have to say that not all so-called churches are truly grounded on the balanced Word of God.

One can believe in Jesus but fail to allow Him to be Lord. In other words, there are those that are not obedient to Him.

[grip_daddy]

This post seek to propose a way forward for the seeming deadlock to arriving at fundamental doctrins that would act as a pointer to the faith group propagating the great gems of truth as would be logically and rationaly acceptable to well reasoned and thoughtful persons. The proposal assumes some basic common grounds as a foundation for not only accepting a way forward to approach this discussion, but also seek to lay few rules that would guide in the exposition of the seemingly hidden concepts applicably meant for man's salvation. The third part would then propose the step by step methodological approach to tackling the well known conflicting doctrines within the Christianity.

To layout a first step, assumptions would be:
1. That all posters interested in this discussion do agree to the fact that various faith groups are divided on some crucial truths as contained in the scriptures.
2. That the conflicts in major doctrinal practices, beliefs, and teachings reveal a confusion which in itself contradict God's important principle of unity, togethers, oneness and order.
3. That the source of conflicts, different interpretations to concepts and scriptural verses need open minded approach to understand, and
4. That to dig deep into the conflicting ideas, each poster will agree to the use of the bible and the bible alone for revealing scriptural concepts meant not to harmonize doctrines but frontier doctrines that are not heretic and in harmony to the plan of salvation, God's characters, and human relations.

In putting the above assumptions, it would be well reasoned to give biblical barkings as to the methodology which if would be used in the exposition, would be considered as consistent with the teachings as given in the same scriptures.

Argueing from assumption two above, the orderly characteristic of God is mentioned in 1 Cor 14:33 where Paul commanded that church functions must be carried out in order, "for God is not a God of disorder but of peace". The orderly instructions that are God given to the church are said to be "God breathed...useful for teaching, rebuking, correction and training in righteousness." 2 Tim 3:16.

In asking who was to be taught, and the suggested answer was children weaned from milk, it was said that such teaching should be "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, and there a little."Isa 28:10. This verse of Isaiah allows for reading and quoting few scriptural verses that explain a biblical concept, that when combined will enable an understanding of a principle truth.

In conclusion, it would be proposed that discussions follow from threads posted for specific conflicting concepts as earlier on numbered by Ndigilia (specific threads for rapture, baptism, Sunday vs Saturday etc), and posters contribut according to assumption four as supported by the biblical barkings.

[ATLian]

The Mission of the Holy spirit is to help the church manage the truth that Jesus revealed.

Jasakwa,

since the church is only 2,000 years old, what was the mission of the Holy Spirit before Jesus died? What was it doing in the days of Moses?



May be the question we ought to ask ourselves is how can we identify the holy spirit?The earth is full of spirits remember satan and his army were hurled upon the earth after their fall in heaven.Christians are cautioned about believeing in just any spirit.

So how does one identify a legitimate spirit?

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

4. That to dig deep into the conflicting ideas, each poster will agree to the use of the bible and the [/b]bible alone [/b]for revealing scriptural concepts meant not to harmonize doctrines but frontier doctrines that are not heretic and in harmony to the plan of salvation, God's characters, and human relations.

Another question would be is the Bible the sole authority for Christian doctrine?

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by ndigila

Another question would be is the Bible the sole authority for Christian doctrine?

I know that Catholics rely also on traditions apart from the Bible. Seventh Day Adventists will also seek explanations from the writings of Ellen White, whereas other faiths would get comfort in dreams, speaking in tongues and such like revelations. But since all these groups agree that the bible was given by God for doctrine, then that's a common base for everyone. If we need to go ahead, we must start somewhere.

[ndigila]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

But since all these groups agree that the bible was given by God for doctrine, then that's a common base for everyone. If we need to go ahead, we must start somewhere.

I believe this is the problem. The Reformers took this attitude (Bible only) and more often than not, disputes resulted in a stale-mate.

[grip_daddy]

Originally Posted by ndigila

I believe this is the problem. The Reformers took this attitude (Bible only) and more often than not, disputes resulted in a stale-mate.

Let's say guys table their proposals too. Or seemingly we will reach a deadlock.

On the other side, I really don't think the error is in the bible, but rather on the reformers who instead of approaching the bible from a neutral ground, wanted to frontier some historical traditions as understood by them to be truth.