VF-582, 4/17/88 -- Giving: The Church's Reason for Being and a Synonym for Righteousness
Jon Volkoff
Righteousness (1 Corinthians 15; Exodus 30; Matthew 6)
The reason for being of the Church is the worship (worth-ship) of
God. In Scripture, giving of money and things for God's work is included
in the highest order of righteous worth-ship toward God, on the same level
as the giving of oneself by faith to the sanctifying work of God's Spirit.
-------
"'I don't see how anybody could preach on the subject he's going to
preach on and expect any results, acting the way he acts.' Well,
we'll see, won't we?
1 Corinthians 15. The basic message of the church: Christ is risen.
You know, when you stop being just poetic, and actually begin to
confront the necessity of believing that as the basis for Christianity,
and the miracle that is involved, are you really going to say that
the Lord providing for you, and honoring such a promise as Malachi 3 --
'Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse that there may be meat in
mine house, and prove me now herewith, and see if I don't pour you out
a blessing you can't contain' -- do you think God, knowing your address
and your capacities, finds it harder to keep that word of promise with
you, and work the miracle of provision in your life, than raising Christ
from the dead?
You see, most Christians don't really believe the Resurrection. Most
Christians are Christians because they fell into it, or because they've
been falsely motivated.
This is the basis of Christianity: Christ is risen, and He is coming
again, and we shall rise -- either caught up to meet him in the air, or
raised in a twinkling. That's Christianity. What goes in the middle?
You're already there with me. The 16th chapter opens: 'Now' -- let's
put it right where we have to fight these human urges -- 'Now, the
collection for the saints.' In case somebody thinks we're just going
to be poetic: 'Now, give money and things." That is Christianity: past,
present, future. I have typified the normal reaction -- it does take a
little dip on first confrontation.
Earlier this week on Festival I pointed out that any organization has
purpose, function, structure, controlling forces -- and that's the 'what'
of an organization. It has personnel, clientele, patrons and products,
as people. Those are the 'who': the product being people in whom the
purpose has been fulfilled; the patrons who support because they know
the purpose and want to support it; the clientele who willingly offer
themselves to have the purpose worked on them; and personnel who join
the team because they want to participate in effecting that purpose.
Now the purposes of any organization are both objective and subjective.
Objective, by definition, ultimately are official written declarations
of purpose, which are supposed to reflect the founder's or creator's
purposes, which are reduced in the founding documents to official written
statements of purposes, and are perpetuated by a legal procedure here
on earth, where the activities of the organization objectify these
official written purposes, which in an ideal sense carry out 'his' purpose
-- the one who put it together.
Obviously, the church is God's. We've taught -- I don't need to bore you
today -- the word 'church' comes from kurios; at it's root, kuriakon.
Kurios, the Lord; kuriakon, the Lord's -- a people who belong to the
Lord. That's the root of the word 'church' in English, German, Latvian
and Scandinavian. The Latin languages get their word from ecclesia --
'out-called ones' -- again, a people that are called out by the Caller
for His purposes. The church is, therefore, a people who belong to the
Lord, and they exist for His purpose.
Subjective purposes are what anybody thinks the purpose may be. That's
what's wrong with the church today. We've got the world out there that
have their subjective purposes for the church, which primarily is to
reduce us down to a powerless lot, happy for the opportunity to have a
little dribble of tax-deductible dollars that we use to take care of
the poor, that the rest of the world made poor by their self-seeking
behavior, but don't want to have to take care of them; they want the
church to do it. Subjective purposes.
And chief among the subjective errors of the world, who looks on and
knows nothing of His (God's) purposes as revealed in His Word -- chief
among their errors is: money and the giving thereof is not a part of
the central purpose of the church. That's their view.
That's why we had court cases that we fought for years, in which the
church was subjected to the attack of governmental agencies, who
justified their actions by saying they were only interested in
financial matters, not the ecclesiastical matters; that ecclesiastical
matters and financial matters were separate; and that the Constitution
protected a church in the free exercise of its ecclesiastical matters,
but finance is not ecclesiastical.
Therefore, they could do what they wanted in that category, including,
in the case of this church, two government agencies demanding the
names and addresses of every donor, what each donor gave over a period
of seven years, and what each individual donation was used for in each
and every case of each and every donation. When caught with their tail
in the crack by a judge where we had pinned them down, they said, 'Oh,
we don't want that.'
But then, when that particular pressure would go away, clear to the
Supreme Court they argued, using technical words, 'the best probative
evidence' -- that is, that which enables you to probe. And as a
government prober, the best probative evidence that you, as a contributor
to a church, will not become the object of fraud, is to have your name,
your address, what you gave and when you gave it, so they can come to
you and probe you, 'Did you know what you were giving for? Are you sure
it was spent for what you gave it for? Are you looking out for your
money properly?'
Now, of course you know what we told them to do. If I were not on
television and could select the most mature elements of this
congregation, I could tell you what we told them to do -- and we're
still telling them that!
Because there is nothing more ecclesiastical than the giving of money
-- money is the testament of worth. What's something worth? How much
are your shoes worth? Oh, five years of walking? That isn't the answer
you get. Ten pounds of that deodorizing stuff?
There's only one criteria that makes sense. What's your shoe worth?
Five dollars, twenty dollars, a hundred dollars? Money is the vehicle
by which we exchange testaments of worth. It's the medium of exchange,
taken as a testimony of value.
Worship...now, I will mix some old ingredients today, as I will in all
of these messages, just like you cook a meal with some salt, and with
some water, and with some common ingredients. But not every meal comes
out the same, just because it has some well-known ingredients -- so don't
go tuning me out!
'Worship' is a contraction of two words: worth and ship. That means
you are 'shipping worth.' That's what you're doing -- you're engaging
in an activity that transfers or 'ships' worth. Tell me any activity
of man in relationship to God that is more ecclesiastical, namely,
expressing that which we are called out to do, as 'called out ones'
(the meaning of ecclesia); tell me an activity more ecclesia, fulfilling
that which the 'called out ones' are called out to do -- tell me one,
more than worship. That's why we were created. Even the Catholic
catechism recognizes that: to worship God; to ship to Him constantly
a testimonial of worth.
Now, let some meathead, D-minus student that barely squeaked through
his law exam, who can't make it in the normal marketplace, that got his
civil service job, goes home and pats his little dumbkopf kids on the
head every night, on his six-hour-a-day, four-days-a-week work program
-- try to tell him what God's purposes are, as if his subjective view
-- some damnable bureaucrat -- 'burac-rat' -- who has his subjective
view of what the church is or ought to be, and says, 'Money's not a
part of it.'
Money is at the heart of it. By money, we ship worth. Worship is
a contraction of 'worth-ship' -- thus, at the heart and soul of what
being a Christian is.
Now how have I countered the subjective view of the government
'burac-rat?' With the objective view of God's Word, to which we go to
find the purpose of the church. And God's Word puts money front and
center.
Now let's look at something else. Functions are of three kinds:
reason-for-being functions; self-continuity functions; auxiliary
functions.
Now, auxiliary functions -- let me take care of those first. Those are
activities with a separate purpose, that bring their purpose with
themselves, and attach like barnacles to a structure, in order to
function on this structure, in conflict usually with the purposes of
this structure, to function free. Maybe the purposes coincide; but
every church, every structure, has to confront people who come along,
who haven't paid the price of developing a structure for their
function according to their purpose; they just want to latch on to
you. People with subjective purposes -- different, even maybe a part
of God's total purpose, but not for the church -- who come and tack on.
Now some auxiliary functions are okay. I wouldn't hesitate if we had
the space, to store -- as we do at one of the subsidiary organizations
that's controlled by this church -- to store emergency supplies for a
disaster. But that's an auxiliary function. I wouldn't mind at all --
as we've done, using our facilities -- to raise money for the library,
which is an auxiliary function. Auxiliary functions are not necessarily
bad, but they must always be kept in perspective as extra baggage, not
necessarily a part of the purpose of the church. Auxiliary functions.
Self-continuity functions are the things you do to stay alive. It's
like eating. Self-continuity functions are not to become
reason-for-being functions; they are exactly what the word says,
'self-continuity' functions. There are things necessary to stay alive
in order that you might perform your reason-for-being functions.
Now the subjective view of the whole church, particularly by
government, who separates money and finance from ecclesiastical
activities, and contributed to -- and this is the terrible thing -- by
the false prophets, lays a moral obligation on anyone to whom the light
has shown. The church has created the frame of reference that gives
the world the chance to separate money and giving from reason-for-being
functions of the church, because they act like the giving of money is
an attachment, a necessary evil, a self-continuity burden that must be
carried on in order to do what the church really exists to do.
That's why you have the 'love gifts.' That's why you have the
mini-society that surrounds television ministries and large church
ministries, who exist to come up with fund-raising ideas -- rusty nails
to mail in an envelope at Easter time, that if you'll write your
request on, put the nail through it and send it back, they'll put that
nail on the Cross at Easter, and all the rusty nails will be returned
with the prayer request plus $5.00 'love gift.'
A hand drawn on a piece of paper; Brother Oral's hand: you lay your hand
on it now...Rocks from Jerusalem; records...I don't object to Jimmy
Swaggart's little boy selling Jimmy's records; I like Jimmy's singing.
I think he's a great singer; I'd buy his records. I don't care who he
sleeps with; he sings good! On the record, I don't care if he sings
naked or dressed. I'll buy the record, if they'll just come out front
and say, 'We have this record to sell.' Don't say, 'For everybody who
sends an offering, no matter how large or small, we'll send you this
record.'
I don't care if you sell Bibles, parts of Bibles, multiplied Bibles,
big Bibles, little Bibles: just sell Bibles. Don't link them to an
offering. Quit contributing to this worldly frame of mind that makes
fund-raising an attachment to the church! Fund-raising -- money -- is
part of the 'reason for being' of the church.
You do not raise money to teach people to be witnesses; you teach
people to be witnesses, which includes the giving of money. Big
difference. Do you know what the word 'witness' comes from? Martyr.
The word translated 'witness' in the King James, in the Greek is the
cognate of our word 'martyr.' Which said martyrdom is to ship a worth
that you could invest on yourself, you deny yourself that investment,
to testify and ship a worth to God, as you martyr a little bit of your
pleasure to testify to God's worth in giving.
The church for years has seen its purpose to send people out with the
Great Commission: 'Go, and tell the world.' They have neglected the
direct order of our Lord, Who said after the woman brought the alabaster
box and broke it, and poured the valuable ointment onto Christ -- and
Judas, who handled the bag and would have skimmed some off, said, 'Why
this waste? This valuable ointment could have been sold and the money
given to the poor.' Subjective viewpoint of why the followers of
Christ exist: to help the poor; subjective viewpoint of where the money
should go.
Jesus said, 'Why trouble ye the woman? She has done a good work unto
me.' Then He added an order: 'Wherever this gospel is preached, see to
it you tell what this woman did.'
Now, what started this series of messages, and opened this one is,
right in the middle of 'He arose' and 'We shall rise': 'Now, concerning
the collection...' You can't separate it. As we matriculate on the
faith of being what He was, raised by God's power, lifted up and
raised again, claiming that promise, 'The same spirit that raised up
Christ from the dead shall dwell in you,' as we matriculate toward
that day where that promise becomes our reality and this corruption
puts on incorruption, this mortal puts on immortality -- in between, we
are giving. The Commission cannot be separated from the testimonial of
the right response to the Commission.
He never said -- He went to a well at Samaria, and the woman of sin,
to whom He revealed her own secret sins, and she ran and got others
and brought them to hear the message of the Water of Life -- He never
said, 'See to it wherever this gospel is preached, you tell what this
woman has done, who ran and got others and brought them to me.' You
may wish that's what He had said, but He didn't. He said that of the
woman who gave her most valuable possession.
Even though He commended the one leper who came back after being
healed and said, 'Where are the other nine?,' He did not say, 'See to
it wherever you preach this gospel you tell what this leper did' who
returned to testify to the healing power of the Savior. He said it
only of the woman who gave to Him her most valuable possession.
Now when you preach on this message, we are battling 2,000 years of
subjective tradition that has replaced the objective place of money that
God's Book is full of. You've heard me say it over and over again:
Jesus talked at least four times as much about money and the right use
of it in regard to pleasing God than He did about heaven. And Paul,
in 2 Corinthians 8 and 9, concluded, 'You prove the genuineness of
God's Spirit in you by the way you give.'
I can almost feel in the air the difficulty of battering down the
tradition that has walled it away, and the subjective opinion that has
allowed the giving of money to fall into a disreputable, apologetic,
defensive posture in the church, to where when you say, 'You can't be
a Christian if you don't give,' you just feel the nerves jangle. Well,
you can't be a Christian if you don't give.
'How can you say that?'
'If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of His.' To
the Corinthians: 'If ye have the spirit of Christ, ye have the mind of
Christ.' To the Philippians: 'Let this mind be in you which was also
in Christ Jesus.' 'And we have seen,' he said to the Corinthians, 'of
what the grace of God appears and looks like, as it is revealed in
Christ. Though rich, He became poor for our sakes.' He gave His all.
You cannot have the mind of Christ, which is the fundamental criteria
of the salvation of grace, which is the gift or implant of God's living
spirit in us, which brings the mind of Christ -- you haven't got it if
it doesn't make you want to give.
'Hallelujah, He has risen!' Shout, shout, shout! 'Hallelujah, we shall
rise!' Shout, shout, shout...shout, shout, shout! 'Now, concerning
the collection...' Oooooaaaaahhhhh...
Go to Exodus 30. God's always been doing it the same way. The
Tabernacle is a type in the Old Testament of our relationship to God
in this journey down here. The Tabernacle was the type of God's
presence in their midst, and the Tabernacle, that God said to Moses,
'You make it exactly according to the specifications I gave you on
Sinai', becomes the road map of man's relationship to God down here.
'Thou shalt make an altar to burn incense upon: of shittim wood shalt
thou make it.'
Now to you who know the way the Tabernacle was laid out, there was an
outer court, then the tent or Tabernacle proper. There was an altar of
burnt offering, a laver of cleansing, a candlestick, a table of
shewbread, an altar of incense; then the Ark of the Covenants, where
God met man's representative, the High Priest, on the Day of Atonement.
So in the Holy Place, the first enclosure: candlestick, table of
shewbread, and an altar of incense.
This is what's being talked of in Exodus 30: that altar of incense,
which symbolizes the prayer life, positioned closest to God. And
true to the New Testament message in Matthew 6, behind these curtains
in secret before God, as Matthew 6 says, 'You don't pray on the street
corner as other men (Pharisees) do, to be seen of men. Shut the door
and go in your closet and do it; and pray to your Father in secret...'
Likewise, behind these walls, the altar of incense; by its positioning,
one of the things closest to God. We'll skip over that, but I just
wanted to point out they were talking about those types of worship;
that goes through the 10th verse.
Now let's skip the 11th verse and go to the 17th verse: 'The Lord
spake unto Moses, saying, Thou shalt also make a laver of brass...'
Now this laver of brass was made from the melted-down mirrors of the
people, used for looking at themselves, and they made this laver of
cleansing, with the water in it that did the cleansing, typical of the
Holy Spirit doing His cleansing work, so it's the type of
sanctification that's in the Tabernacle.
Then go to the 22nd verse: 'Moreover the Lord spake unto Moses,
saying, Take thou also unto thee principal spices...' and it goes to
the anointing oil. Now preachers love to talk about the 'anointing,'
the anointing oil that comes from God, that sets them apart as vessels
anointed of God. Then, in the 34th verse: 'Take unto thee sweet
spices...' The incense itself that is to go on the altar of incense is
defined.
We cannot get to purer worship, or expression of 'worth-ship', than
the offering of ourselves to be the tabernacle and the inhabitant of
the Spirit of God, to wash us and to do His work in us, apart from our
work. You can't get closer to God than that life of prayer and the
incense that goes on it, that ascends to Him, and the anointment that
goes on the set-apart vessels of God.
Right in the middle of that -- and this is the point of going to the
chapter -- the 11th verse: 'The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, When
thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then
shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when
thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou
numberest them. This they shall give, every one that passeth among
them that are numbered, half a shekel...' (too bad they translated it
that way; it's ten gerahs) '...Half a shekel, after the shekel of the
sanctuary (a shekel is twenty gerahs); half a shekel shall be the
offering of the Lord. Every one that passeth among them that are
numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto
the Lord.'
And because the love of money is the root of all evil, this is the one
that has plague attached to it. You want to suffer? Same message
everywhere you turn, see? Malachi 3: 'You have robbed me.' 'Wherein
have we robbed you?' 'Tithes and offerings. But prove me now herewith.
Bring all the tithes into the storehouse and prove me now herewith, and
see if I don't give you a blessing you can't contain.' Curse if you
don't, blessing if you do.
Right in the midst of these high-level spiritual acts: 'Now, concerning
the collection...', then to the laver, then to the anointing oil, then
to the incense.
I'm making a simple point: the reason-for-being function of the church
includes giving. I don't object to prayer being there; I don't object
to anointing being there; I don't object to the sanctifying work of the
Holy Spirit being there. God -- and I speak for Him today -- God doesn't
object to you seeing that all of that is there, as long as you put giving
there.
Paul commends the Corinthians for the other gift expressions of the
Spirit. 'See to it,' he says, 'that this grace (gift) is added, by
which you prove the genuineness of God's Spirit in you.'
Now, I end with what I pointed out earlier this week: you take the
Word in Matthew 6 -- go to it; you are going to see the same thing we
just saw in Exodus 30. (My lord, he's hammering us with this. Where
do we get inspired?) 'Take heed that ye do not your alms before men.'
Some of you may not have been listening. Circle the word 'alms.' The
word in the Greek is dikaiosune. It has that word in it, always in the
word 'righteousness,' dike. Next verse, same word: 'alms.' 'When thou
doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet.' 'Alms'; there it is
eleemosune, from which we get 'eleemosynary.' 'Alms' in both verses of
the King James, but a different word in the Greek. In the first verse,
it's talking about righteousness. The second verse is talking about
eleemosynary giving of money for worthy causes -- no cause of which is
more worthy than God and His Word.
Now I made the point earlier in the week: there is your proof that the
word for righteousness and the word for giving, the very ecclesiastical
word 'righteousness', and the finance word that the world subjectively
would separate from the reason-for-being of the church, are synonyms.
'Righteousness' and 'giving': synonyms.
But a proper translation of this verse would be, 'Take heed that ye do
not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them. Otherwise ye
have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.' Which tells you why
all these legalists and dump-on-you preachers that are parading their
righteousness, if their view of righteousness were correct, they've
lost their reward, because they've got to do it to be seen of men.
But what this should say is, 'Take heed ye do not your righteousness
before men.' 'Alms' shouldn't even be in that verse, because what
follows is a chapter full of righteous activities, starting with the
giving of alms, going to prayer, following with fasting, and then
bringing up the point of, 'Lay not treasures for yourself down here,
but lay them up in heaven, where rust and moth doth not corrupt,' and
all of that, twice: the giving of alms first, and the laying up of
treasures last, in this chapter, with in-between prayer and fasting --
all are righteousness, qualified by the first verse.
Exodus 30, where it is in the same order: giving, sanctification,
anointing and the altar of incense; in Matthew 6, it is included
in the highest order of righteous acts that are to be done for God,
that you might lay up a treasure in heaven. How, then, can anybody
dare apologize for including the teaching and participation in giving
in the heart and center of their message?
I've just gotten started, folks. Good day."
emmitt maloney
Lets take a look at how Dr. jean scams his people.
Jon Volkoff wrote:
> VF-582, 4/17/88 -- Giving: The Church's Reason for Being and a Synonym for
> Righteousness (1 Corinthians 15; Exodus 30; Matthew 6)
>
> The reason for being of the Church is the worship (worth-ship) of
> God. In Scripture, giving of money and things for God's work is included
> in the highest order of righteous worth-ship toward God, on the same level
> as the giving of oneself by faith to the sanctifying work of God's Spirit.
Emmitt writes:
Dr. jean uses the word worship (worth-ship) and says it means ship-worth,
to ship our worth (physical money and valuables) to the one who teaches
us. Now here is where the fun begins. The word "WORSHIP" is an English word.
This word which means to ship our worth (according to Dr. jean) in English is
not found in the Greek scriptures. The word "proskuneo" in Greek which
translated worship is defined as
"To prostrate oneself in homage". Please don't try to tell me that this means
to give
physical money.
Dr. jean has spent over a year in Romans going over the Greek to show the real
and
exact intent of the verses. Now Dr. jean uses the English word to suit his
giving program
(or how to scam people by using the bible) and not the Greek.
Like I have always said, oh Dr. jean, you are slick.
>
>
> -------
>
> "'I don't see how anybody could preach on the subject he's going to
> preach on and expect any results, acting the way he acts.' Well,
> we'll see, won't we?
>
> 1 Corinthians 15. The basic message of the church: Christ is risen.
> You know, when you stop being just poetic, and actually begin to
> confront the necessity of believing that as the basis for Christianity,
> and the miracle that is involved, are you really going to say that
> the Lord providing for you, and honoring such a promise as Malachi 3 --
> 'Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse that there may be meat in
> mine house, and prove me now herewith, and see if I don't pour you out
> a blessing you can't contain' -- do you think God, knowing your address
> and your capacities, finds it harder to keep that word of promise with
> you, and work the miracle of provision in your life, than raising Christ
> from the dead?
Emmitt writes:
Here Dr. jean uses the Old Testament laws to support his giving program.
I would hope that most Christians know better than to keep themselves
under the law when Jesus died to set us free.
Oh Dr. jean, you are slick.
>
>
> You see, most Christians don't really believe the Resurrection. Most
> Christians are Christians because they fell into it, or because they've
> been falsely motivated.
Emmitt writes:
Dr. jean keeps saying that "most Christians don't believe in the resurrection"
Which major denominations (Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, etc
don't believe in the Resurrection????
How can you be a Christian (follower of Christ) and not believe in the
Resurrection?????
Dr. jean just blows more smoke.
The whole purpose of Dr. jeans statement "most Christians don't believe in the
Resurrection" is to scam the scottites. What he is doing is telling the
scottites that
they are just about the only Christians that believe in the resurrection so
they are better than all other Christians. They are the true Christians and
most other denominations are not.
Oh Dr. jean you are slick.
Jon Volkoff
> Jon Volkoff wrote:
>
> > VF-582, 4/17/88 -- Giving: The Church's Reason for Being and a Synonym for
> > Righteousness (1 Corinthians 15; Exodus 30; Matthew 6)
> >
> > The reason for being of the Church is the worship (worth-ship) of
> > God. In Scripture, giving of money and things for God's work is included
> > in the highest order of righteous worth-ship toward God, on the same level
> > as the giving of oneself by faith to the sanctifying work of God's Spirit.
>
> Emmitt writes:
> Dr. jean uses the word worship (worth-ship) and says it means ship-worth,
> to ship our worth (physical money and valuables) to the one who teaches
> us. Now here is where the fun begins. The word "WORSHIP" is an English word.
> This word which means to ship our worth (according to Dr. jean) in English is
> not found in the Greek scriptures. The word "proskuneo" in Greek which
> translated worship is defined as "To prostrate oneself in homage". Please
> don't try to tell me that this means to give physical money.
>
> Dr. jean has spent over a year in Romans going over the Greek to show the real
> and exact intent of the verses. Now Dr. jean uses the English word to suit his
> giving program (or how to scam people by using the bible) and not the Greek.
> Like I have always said, oh Dr. jean, you are slick.
Berry's Lexicon:
prosukuneo -- to bow down, to prostrate one's self to, to worship, God or
inferior beings, to adore (dative or accusative).
Webster:
Main Entry: homage
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French hommage, from homme man,
vassal, from Latin homin-, homo human being; akin to Old English guma
human being, Latin humus earth -- more at HUMBLE
Date: 14th century
1 a : a feudal ceremony by which a man acknowledges himself the vassal
of a lord b : the relationship between a feudal lord and his vassal c
: an act done or payment made in meeting the obligations of vassalage
2 a : expression of high regard : RESPECT -- often used with pay b :
something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of
another : TRIBUTE <his long life filled with international homages to
his unique musical talent -- People>
synonym see HONOR
Proskuneo does not mean giving of money and things per se, but it certainly
includes it as an essential expression of "paying homage." Which is in fact
the point that Doc was making.
"We cannot get to purer worship, or expression of 'worth-ship', than
the offering of ourselves to be the tabernacle and the inhabitant of
the Spirit of God, to wash us and to do His work in us, apart from our
work. You can't get closer to God than that life of prayer and the
incense that goes on it, that ascends to Him, and the anointment that
goes on the set-apart vessels of God."
(...)
"I'm making a simple point: the reason-for-being function of the church
includes giving. I don't object to prayer being there; I don't object
to anointing being there; I don't object to the sanctifying work of the
Holy Spirit being there. God -- and I speak for Him today -- God doesn't
object to you seeing that all of that is there, as long as you put giving
there."
> > -------
> >
> > "'I don't see how anybody could preach on the subject he's going to
> > preach on and expect any results, acting the way he acts.' Well,
> > we'll see, won't we?
> >
> > 1 Corinthians 15. The basic message of the church: Christ is risen.
> > You know, when you stop being just poetic, and actually begin to
> > confront the necessity of believing that as the basis for Christianity,
> > and the miracle that is involved, are you really going to say that
> > the Lord providing for you, and honoring such a promise as Malachi 3 --
> > 'Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse that there may be meat in
> > mine house, and prove me now herewith, and see if I don't pour you out
> > a blessing you can't contain' -- do you think God, knowing your address
> > and your capacities, finds it harder to keep that word of promise with
> > you, and work the miracle of provision in your life, than raising Christ
> > from the dead?
>
> Emmitt writes:
> Here Dr. jean uses the Old Testament laws to support his giving program.
> I would hope that most Christians know better than to keep themselves
> under the law when Jesus died to set us free.
> Oh Dr. jean, you are slick.
Christ died to redeem from the curse of the Law. This does not mean that
the Law itself is abolished or no longer of any use to Christians. (After
all, it was the only Bible of the first century church.) It serves as our
example, in this case to show that God rewards worshipful giving from the
heart. Jesus said just as much: "Give and it shall be given unto you."
> > You see, most Christians don't really believe the Resurrection. Most
> > Christians are Christians because they fell into it, or because they've
> > been falsely motivated.
>
> Emmitt writes:
> Dr. jean keeps saying that "most Christians don't believe in the resurrection"
>
> Which major denominations (Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, etc
> don't believe in the Resurrection????
> How can you be a Christian (follower of Christ) and not believe in the
> Resurrection?????
You can't. But you can pretend to be an individual follower of Christ and
pretend to believe in the Resurrection. But in time the trees are known by
their fruits. A tree that in due season is lacking in worth-ship-ful
expressions to God, including but not limited to giving of money and things,
is not a tree that He has planted. OTOH, if you really believe in the
Resurrection and all that it implies, fruit will not be lacking.
Visit Dr. Gene Scott's website at http://www.drgenescott.org
and the UN-common Students website at http://www.geocities.com/j_volkoff
Bill and Penny Round
another beggar in the Lord's name. Nothing more nada less. If he is having
trouble making ends meet sell a few horses. Most of the rest of us have
learned to live on a budget!
Regards
"Jon Volkoff" <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.10.10104091...@admiral.eideticscorp.com..
.
Mari Silver
the literal sense are Episcopalian, Methodist or (gasp!!) Presbyterian.
I never could figure out how one can be a Christian and not believe in
the literal resurrection of Jesus. But obviously there are those who
would disagree with this concept.
Mari
emmitt maloney
That is interesting Mari. I have never had a lot of contact with those 3
denominations that you mention. I do know a few, and they all
believe in the resurrection. ????
The 3 main points that I see are, 1. Jesus Christ was God. 2. He died on the Cross
3. The resurrection. How any christian can throw out any of these is beyond me.
Emmitt
Elder Perm Poom
<emal...@home.com> wrote:
> This word which means to ship our worth (according to Dr. jean) in English is
> not found in the Greek scriptures. The word "proskuneo" in Greek which
> translated worship is defined as "To prostrate oneself in homage".
Maybe it means we should pay homage to Gene's prostate!
Blessings
Elder Perm Poom
The First Internet McChurch Tabernacle
http://www.mcchurch.com
Elder Perm Poom
<Pine.WNT.4.10.10104091...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
> Proskuneo does not mean giving of money and things per se, but it certainly
> includes it as an essential expression of "paying homage." Which is in fact
> the point that Doc was making.
To "prostrate oneself in homage" is to offer yourself up to the
Lord. *YOU* are the payment in tribute, not money. The Big Boy
doesn't care about money. He cares about YOU. The only one with
his eyes on your pocketbook is Gene Scott. He will twist God's
word to get it from you too.
emmitt maloney
Come on Jon. The whole idea of worship is from a spiritual sense. We don't have to
bow down,
bow our head, kneel, bend over, give money or do anything physical. We worship God
with our
spirit from our heart. It is an inner being thing that the H.S. leads us in. We
surrender our life to
God. The function of the church is giving but the function of worship is reverence,
honor, love
of God. Why hasn't Dr. jean used the greek text when he defines worship in his
giving program?
Jon Volkoff wrote:
Emmitt writes:
Okay Jon. Do you still do blood sacrifices? Do you still follow any of the Sabbath
laws?
Just what O.T. laws do you follow that are not repeated in the N.T.?
>
>
> > > You see, most Christians don't really believe the Resurrection. Most
> > > Christians are Christians because they fell into it, or because they've
> > > been falsely motivated.
> >
> > Emmitt writes:
> > Dr. jean keeps saying that "most Christians don't believe in the resurrection"
> >
> > Which major denominations (Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, etc
> > don't believe in the Resurrection????
> > How can you be a Christian (follower of Christ) and not believe in the
> > Resurrection?????
>
> You can't. But you can pretend to be an individual follower of Christ and
> pretend to believe in the Resurrection. But in time the trees are known by
> their fruits. A tree that in due season is lacking in worth-ship-ful
> expressions to God, including but not limited to giving of money and things,
> is not a tree that He has planted. OTOH, if you really believe in the
> Resurrection and all that it implies, fruit will not be lacking.
Emmitt writes:
You make my point Jon.
You are showing that people pretend to be christians. There is no doubt about it.
But they are not really christians. Now when Dr. jean says "most Christians do not
believe in the Resurrection" who is he talking about?? All the Christians I know
believe in the Resurrection. Now the problem that I see is, Dr. jean is a total liar
or
he does not know many "real" christians. Take your pick. I would say probably both.
emmitt maloney
That is good!
Jon Volkoff
Visit Dr. Gene Scott's website at http://www.drgenescott.org
and the UN-common Students website at http://www.geocities.com/j_volkoff
Elder Perm Poom
> Most of the "Christians" I know who don't believe in the resurrection in
> the literal sense are Episcopalian, Methodist or (gasp!!) Presbyterian.
Having been raised in the Methodist church, and having family
in the Episcopal clergy, I can tell you that the literal
ressurection is an integral part of both of these denominations.
I sincerely doubt that Presbyterians are any different.
I think you are mistaken.
Jon Volkoff
> In article
> <Pine.WNT.4.10.10104091...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
> Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
>
> > Proskuneo does not mean giving of money and things per se, but it certainly
> > includes it as an essential expression of "paying homage." Which is in fact
> > the point that Doc was making.
>
> To "prostrate oneself in homage" is to offer yourself up to the
> Lord. *YOU* are the payment in tribute, not money. The Big Boy
> doesn't care about money. He cares about YOU. The only one with
> his eyes on your pocketbook is Gene Scott. He will twist God's
> word to get it from you too.
I think you're the one that's twisting God's Word, PP. Ever hear of a concept
called stewardship? If you really give yourself as tribute to God then you
really own nothing of yourself, but everything becomes the Lord's -- or
rather, you are recognizing that all you have has always been His -- and you
are merely a caretaker for what is His. He cares about what you do with
everything He has entrusted you with -- your life, your substance, your all.
In particular, you cannot separate the worship of God from honoring Him with
your substance (Proverbs 3:9). Note how He punished the unfaithful steward
to whom he had entrusted wealth (Luke 19:12-27).
Jon Volkoff
> Come on Jon. The whole idea of worship is from a spiritual sense. We don't
> have to bow down, bow our head, kneel, bend over, give money or do anything
> physical. We worship God with our spirit from our heart. It is an inner
> being thing that the H.S. leads us in. We surrender our life to God. The
> function of the church is giving but the function of worship is reverence,
> honor, love of God. Why hasn't Dr. jean used the greek text when he defines
> worship in his giving program?
Yes, at its core worship is spiritual -- in spirit and in truth. But if you
really mean it in spirit, you will seek to honor God with everything He has
given you, and thus it cannot remain "only" spiritual forever...or for long.
If it remains "only" spiritual, then it was never spiritual in the first place,
but a superficial commitment.
"But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have
need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth
the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in
word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." (1 John 3:17,18)
Jon Volkoff
> In article <3AD23A13...@qwest.net>, Mari Silver <t...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> > Most of the "Christians" I know who don't believe in the resurrection in
> > the literal sense are Episcopalian, Methodist or (gasp!!) Presbyterian.
>
> Having been raised in the Methodist church, and having family
> in the Episcopal clergy, I can tell you that the literal
> ressurection is an integral part of both of these denominations.
> I sincerely doubt that Presbyterians are any different.
> I think you are mistaken.
Au contraire, mein herring, I think you are seriously mistaken.
Modernism and liberalism in these denominations is not even new information,
but has been true for a generation or more.
Linkname: THE DENOMINATIONS TODAY
URL: http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/fbns85.html
-------
(...)
MODERNISM: In this century liberalism has largely taken over the
Anglican denomination. A large percentage of its bishops and pastors
are modernists who deny the miracles of the Bible. Former Archbishop
of Canterbury Robert Runcie illustrates this sad trend. In an
interview with a newspaper the editor picked up in London on Easter
1982, Runcie was asked about the meaning of the cross. He replied, "As
to that, I am an agnostic." Runcie was not certain of the meaning of
the cross! In the same interview he said he felt Buddhism is a proper
way to God and that Christians should not say that Jesus Christ is the
only way of salvation. Anglican bishop David Jenkins openly questions
every major teaching of the Bible. Of Christ's resurrection, this
Church of England bishop says, "The Christian is not bound up with
freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around." Of Christ's
virgin birth, Jenkins says, "As for the virgin birth, they're the sort
of stories that get told after you already believe somebody is very
important. You don't have to believe in the virgin birth..."
(...)
MODERNISM. The Episcopal Church has largely been taken over by
modernism. A majority of the leaders hold rationalistic beliefs,
denying the perfect inspiration of the Bible and denying or
questioning Christ's deity, virgin birth, resurrection, and other
Bible miracles, yet they are allowed to remain in good standing within
the denomination. In the first half of the 20th century, Episcopal
Bishop James Pike denied all of the major tenets of the Christian
faith. He said, "Religious myth is one of the avenues of faith and has
an important place in the communication of the Gospel" and he spoke of
the "myth" of the Garden of Eden and the "myth" of the virgin birth.
Pike said, "I have abandoned ship on the doctrine of the Trinity. I
have jettisoned the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ"
(Christian Beacon, Mar. 17. 1955).
(...)
THE UMC AND MODERNISM. The prevailing theological climate in the UMC
was stated by Bishop James Thomas at the UMC Quadrennial General
Conference in 1976: "We do not believe ... in rigid doctrinal concepts
to hold us steady in a wavering world." This is an understatement; the
fact is that most UMC pastors don't believe the Bible. Polls have
shown that at least 30 percent of UMC ministers do not believe Jesus
Christ is God, and 82% say they do not believe the Bible is the
perfect Word of God. As early as 1968 a widely publicized scientific
survey by Jeffrey Hadden which was published by the Washington
University showed that about 60% of the Methodist clergy did not
believe in the virgin birth and at least 50% did not believe in the
bodily resurrection of Christ. A Gallup survey in 1982 revealed that
34% of Methodists believe community service is more important than
proclaiming the Gospel. In The Battle for the Bible, respected
evangelical leader Harold Lindsell stated, "It is not unfair to allege
that among denominations like Episcopal, United Methodist, United
Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, the Lutheran Church in America,
and the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. there is not a single theological
seminary that takes a stand in favor of biblical infallibility. And
there is not a single seminary where there are not faculty members who
disavow one or more of the major teachings of the Christian faith."
(...)
THE PC-USA AND MODERNISM. The gospel promoted in the PC-USA is
primarily a false social gospel. In 1984, moderator Harriet Nelson
said, "The Gospel is not just telling people they are saved. It also
means meeting needs--things like providing food for the hungry and
clothing for the naked." The PC-USA supports all sorts of radical
social-political causes in the world, but gives very little to
evangelistic work. A survey taken in 1986 revealed that only 5% of the
"clergy" and 16% of the membership in the PC-USA believe the Bible is
to be taken literally. More than 75% of those polled rejected the idea
that those who have not heard of Jesus Christ will be damned. In 1987
the PC-USA adopted a report which says that Christians and Jews
worship the same God and that Jews are already in a covenant
relationship with God and do not therefore need to be born again
through faith in Jesus Christ to enjoy such a covenant. In 1982 the
United Presbyterian Church ordained Mansfield Kaseman in spite of the
fact that he denied that Jesus Christ is God, that He was sinless, and
that Christ rose bodily from the dead. In typical neo-orthodox
doublespeak Kaseman said, "I believe in the resurrection without
necessarily believing in the bodily resurrection." When asked if Jesus
is God, he replied, "No, God is God." Yet the presbytery voted 165-59
to admit Kaseman to the Presbyterian ministry. Also in 1982 the
director of the United Presbyterian missions program, G. Daniel
Little, rebuked fundamentalists for supporting creationism, and
labeled the literal creation view "denial of the living God" and
"calcifying of narrow, outdated views." The "Brief Statement of Faith"
approved at the 1991 General Assembly of the PC-USA contained no clear
affirmation of the Trinity; made no reference to Heaven, Hell, or the
bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, but it affirmed sexual equality
and environmental concerns.
(...)
Bill and Penny Round
Regards
"Jon Volkoff" <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.WNT.4.10.10104091...@admiral.eideticscorp.com..
.
emmitt maloney
Luke 19 is talking about the word of God and not about money. If you
haven't figgured that out yet then it is no wonder you give Scott money.
Prov 3:9 If you are using this as to say when we give money to God
we get much more back then you just shot yourself in the foot. The
whole concept of giving (I have even heard Scott teach this), is we give because God
has already given to us. We are not to give with the idea that we are going to get
back ten fold,
as many do teach.
Let me say it again. Giving is a function of the church. Worship is a function of the
heart.
Friend
Emmitt
emmitt maloney
Here you are talking about Modernism creeping into these churches. Hell you
don't even accept all the books in our present bible as being the inspired word
of God. You only accept the books that suit Scott's teachings. I guess we
could call Scott's church "Deletism". Just delete anything that doesn't suit you.
Elder Perm Poom
<Pine.WNT.4.10.10104091...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 16:13:36 -0700, perm...@mcchurch.com (Elder Perm
Poom) wrote:
>
> > To "prostrate oneself in homage" is to offer yourself up to the
> > Lord. *YOU* are the payment in tribute, not money. The Big Boy
> > doesn't care about money. He cares about YOU. The only one with
> > his eyes on your pocketbook is Gene Scott. He will twist God's
> > word to get it from you too.
>
> I think you're the one that's twisting God's Word, PP. Ever hear of a concept
> called stewardship? If you really give yourself as tribute to God then you
> really own nothing of yourself, but everything becomes the Lord's -- or
> rather, you are recognizing that all you have has always been His -- and you
> are merely a caretaker for what is His.
OK... Fine. What does that have to do with giving money to
Gene Scott?
emmitt maloney
You forgot to comment on the rest. You probably didn't scroll down.
Elder Perm Poom
<Pine.WNT.4.10.10104091...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
> Au contraire, mein herring, I think you are seriously mistaken.
> Modernism and liberalism in these denominations is not even new information,
> but has been true for a generation or more.
>
> Linkname: THE DENOMINATIONS TODAY
> URL: http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/fbns85.html
What a bunch of hogwash!
You sure are willing to quote "Sister Sal's" when it suits
your purposes! This stuff you posted here is about as valid
as Tony Alamo's screeds on the Catholic church. You need to
read a better grade of comic books.
Jon Volkoff
> Luke 19 is talking about the word of God and not about money. If you
> haven't figgured that out yet then it is no wonder you give Scott money.
Not sure where you got that one, but it might be worth noting that your buddy
John Calvin didn't "figure it out" either, since he arrives at the same
conclusion, that the talents represent any gift or ability that God has
entrusted to his servants, be it natural or spiritual, to be used for His
glory. He says nothing -- repeat, nothing -- in this commentary about the
talents being the word of God.
Linkname: Matthew 25:14-30; Luke 19:11-28
URL: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol32/htm/lxxx.htm
-------
(...)
13. And having called his ten servants. We must not inquire anxiously
into the number of the servants, or into the sums of money. For
Matthew, by expressing various sums, includes a more extensive
doctrine, namely, that Christ does not lay on all an equal charge of
trafficking, but commits to one a small, and to another a larger sum
of money. Both agree in this, that till the last day of the
resurrection Christ, in some respects, goes to a distance from his
people, but yet that it would be highly improper for them to sit down
in idleness and do no good; for each has a certain office enjoined
him, in which he ought to be employed, and, therefore, they ought to
be diligent in trading, that they may be careful to increase their
Lord's property.
Luke says simply, that to each he gave a pound; because, whether more
or less may be committed to us by our Lord, every man must equally
give account for himself. Matthew, as I have said, is more full and
copious; for he states various degrees. Let us know that the Lord does
not bestow on all indiscriminately the same measure of gifts,
(Ephesians 4:7,) but distributes them variously as he thinks proper,
(1 Corinthians 12:11,)
so that some excel others. But whatever gifts the Lord has bestowed
upon us, let us know that it is committed to us as so much money, that
it may yield some gain; for nothing could be more unreasonable than
that we should allow to remain buried, or should apply to no use,
God's favors, the value of which consists in yielding fruit.
Matthew 25:15. To every one according to his own ability. By this term
Christ does not distinguish between natural gifts and the gifts of the
Spirit; for we have neither power nor skill 5 which ought not to be
acknowledged as having been received from God; and, therefore, whoever
shall determine to give God his share will leave nothing for himself.
What then is meant by saying, that the master of the house gives to
each person more or less, according to his own ability? It is because
God, as he has assigned to every one his place, and has bestowed on
him natural gifts, gives him also this or the other injunction,
employs him in the management of affairs, raises him to various
offices, furnishes him with abundant means of eminent usefulness, and
presents to him the opportunity.
It is absurd, however, in the Papists to infer from this, that the
gifts of God are conferred on every man according to the measure which
he deserves. For, though the old translator, 6 employed the word
virtus, 7 he did not mean that God bestows his gifts, according as men
have acquitted themselves well, and obtained the praise of virtue, but
only so far as the master of the house has judged them to be suitable.
Now we know that no man is found by God to be suitable till He has
made him so; and the Greek word du>namiv, (power, ability,) which
Christ employed, is free from all ambiguity.
20. And he who had received five talents. Those who employ usefully
whatever God has committed to them are said to be engaged in trading.
The life of the godly, 8 is justly compared to trading, for they ought
naturally to exchange and barter with each other, in order to maintain
intercourse; and the industry with which every mall discharges the
office assigned him, the calling itself, the power of acting properly,
and other gifts, are reckoned to be so many kinds of merchandise;
because the use or object which they have in view is, to promote
mutual intercourse among men.
Now the gain which Christ mentions is general usefulness, 9 which
illustrates the glory of God. For, though God is not enriched, and
makes no gain, by our labors, yet when every one is highly profitable
to his brethren, and applies advantageously, for their salvation, the
gifts which he has received from God, he is said to yield profit, or
gain, to God himself. So highly does our heavenly Father value the
salvation of men, that whatever contributes to it he chooses to place
to his own account. That we may not become weary in doing well,
(Galatians 6:9,) Christ declares that the labor of those who are
faithfully employed in their calling will not be useless.
(...)
> Prov 3:9 If you are using this as to say when we give money to God
> we get much more back then you just shot yourself in the foot. The
> whole concept of giving (I have even heard Scott teach this), is we give
> because God has already given to us. We are not to give with the idea
> that we are going to get back ten fold, as many do teach.
Actually, the Bible (and Doc) teach both: that 1) one gives in response to
what God has done for them, and 2) that God is a fair Master (more than fair,
actually), and will give back many times more than the small amounts we give
to him. This is not a debatable point. God just never promised to do it all
in this life, as the prosperity teachers claim.
The only thing God promised to do in this life is supply all our need.
The tenfold or more rewards come in the next life. "Lay up for yourselves
treasure in heaven."
> Let me say it again. Giving is a function of the church. Worship is a
> function of the heart.
That's strange, since the Apostle Paul said
"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give;
not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."
(2 Corinthians 9:7)
Sure sounds like he's talking about a function of the heart to me.
"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I
give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me
nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3)
If you're not giving from your heart, but because it's a church function,
maybe you're better off not giving, because it won't profit you anything in
eternity.
Jon Volkoff
does not. But that isn't the subject under consideration, which is faith in
the Resurrection vis-a-vis the various denominations.
FWIW, as I recall Luther and Calvin themselves doubted the authenticity of
a number of NT epistles. Feel free to go rag on them as being false
Reformers if you are so inclined.
Visit Dr. Gene Scott's website at http://www.drgenescott.org
and the UN-common Students website at http://www.geocities.com/j_volkoff
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:52:45 GMT, emmitt maloney <emal...@home.com> wrote:
> Here you are talking about Modernism creeping into these churches. Hell you
> don't even accept all the books in our present bible as being the inspired
> word of God. You only accept the books that suit Scott's teachings. I guess we
> could call Scott's church "Deletism". Just delete anything that doesn't suit
> you.
>
> Jon Volkoff wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 17:43:59 -0700, perm...@mcchurch.com (Elder Perm Poom) w
> rote:
> >
> > > In article <3AD23A13...@qwest.net>, Mari Silver <t...@qwest.net> wrote
> :
> > >
> > > > Most of the "Christians" I know who don't believe in the resurrection in
> > > > the literal sense are Episcopalian, Methodist or (gasp!!) Presbyterian.
> > >
> > > Having been raised in the Methodist church, and having family
> > > in the Episcopal clergy, I can tell you that the literal
> > > ressurection is an integral part of both of these denominations.
> > > I sincerely doubt that Presbyterians are any different.
> > > I think you are mistaken.
> >
> > Au contraire, mein herring, I think you are seriously mistaken.
> > Modernism and liberalism in these denominations is not even new information,
> > but has been true for a generation or more.
> >
> > Linkname: THE DENOMINATIONS TODAY
> > URL: http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/fbns85.html
> >
Jon Volkoff
> In article
> <Pine.WNT.4.10.10104091...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
> Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
>
> > Au contraire, mein herring, I think you are seriously mistaken.
> > Modernism and liberalism in these denominations is not even new information,
> > but has been true for a generation or more.
> >
> > Linkname: THE DENOMINATIONS TODAY
> > URL: http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/fbns85.html
>
> What a bunch of hogwash!
>
> You sure are willing to quote "Sister Sal's" when it suits
> your purposes! This stuff you posted here is about as valid
> as Tony Alamo's screeds on the Catholic church. You need to
> read a better grade of comic books.
Sorry, but waving your arms frantically shrilling "It's not true" doesn't
cut it for reasoned discussion.
David Cloud is not a "Sister Sal" anyhow. All perfectionists are
fundamentalists, but not all fundamentalists are perfectionists. He's one
that isn't, and most certainly believes in salvation and fellowship by
grace tbrough faith in Christ alone without works of the law.
Jon Volkoff
> <Pine.WNT.4.10.10104091...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
> Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
>
> Poom) wrote:
> >
> > > To "prostrate oneself in homage" is to offer yourself up to the
> > > Lord. *YOU* are the payment in tribute, not money. The Big Boy
> > > doesn't care about money. He cares about YOU. The only one with
> > > his eyes on your pocketbook is Gene Scott. He will twist God's
> > > word to get it from you too.
> >
> > I think you're the one that's twisting God's Word, PP. Ever hear of a concept
> > called stewardship? If you really give yourself as tribute to God then you
> > really own nothing of yourself, but everything becomes the Lord's -- or
> > rather, you are recognizing that all you have has always been His -- and you
> > are merely a caretaker for what is His.
>
> OK... Fine. What does that have to do with giving money to
> Gene Scott?
Everything. If you think he's doing a good work for God and are profiting
from his teaching, the Apostle Paul taught through the Holy Spirit that you
should share with the one that you received teaching benefit from. One good
application of stewardship. And of course, if you received no benefit from
said teaching, it isn't a good place to have God's steward put His money.
Doc, of course, says just as much.
Jon Volkoff
> > > Christ died to redeem from the curse of the Law. This does not mean that
> > > the Law itself is abolished or no longer of any use to Christians. (After
> > > all, it was the only Bible of the first century church.) It serves as our
> > > example, in this case to show that God rewards worshipful giving from the
> > > heart. Jesus said just as much: "Give and it shall be given unto you."
> >
> > Emmitt writes:
> > Okay Jon. Do you still do blood sacrifices? Do you still follow any of the
> > Sabbath laws?
> > Just what O.T. laws do you follow that are not repeated in the N.T.?
I could do blood sacrifices, but I don't need to, since they were all types of
Christ anyway, and He fulfilled that requirement once for all. I would not
sin, however, if I made a Levitical-type blood sacrifice for reasons other
than salvation; say, to see the type of Christ portrayed in it.
I could keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord, but I prefer to regard every day
as holy unto the Lord. I would not be sin, however, if I kept the Sabbath.
I could give tithes to God, but I prefer to give offerings from the heart,
since for one thing I am not living in Israel, and there is no tribe of Levi
for me to support under the Jewish theocracy, not to mention a special
priesthood to collect the tithe. I would not sin, however, if I did practice
tithing because I thought it was a good thing as God's steward for me to do.
I could continue, but having said that, the real subject is: is the Law of any
use to Christians now that they have been freed from its curse? Paul answers
an emphatic "yes": "Now these things were our examples..." (1 Corinthians 10:6)
From the Law one can learn lessons to apply to one's spiritual life. There are
more useful things in the Law than just the ones repeated in the NT.
> > > > > You see, most Christians don't really believe the Resurrection. Most
> > > > > Christians are Christians because they fell into it, or because
> > > > > they've been falsely motivated.
> > > >
> > > > Dr. jean keeps saying that "most Christians don't believe in the
> > > > resurrection"
> > > >
> > > > Which major denominations (Baptists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, etc
> > > > don't believe in the Resurrection????
> > > > How can you be a Christian (follower of Christ) and not believe in the
> > > > Resurrection?????
> > >
> > > You can't. But you can pretend to be an individual follower of Christ and
> > > pretend to believe in the Resurrection. But in time the trees are known
> > > by their fruits. A tree that in due season is lacking in worth-ship-ful
> > > expressions to God, including but not limited to giving of money and
> > > things, is not a tree that He has planted. OTOH, if you really believe
> > > in the Resurrection and all that it implies, fruit will not be lacking.
> >
> > You make my point Jon.
> > You are showing that people pretend to be christians. There is no doubt
> > about it.
> > But they are not really christians. Now when Dr. jean says "most Christians
> > do not believe in the Resurrection" who is he talking about?? All the
> > Christians I know believe in the Resurrection. Now the problem that I see
> > is, Dr. jean is a total liar or he does not know many "real" christians.
> > Take your pick. I would say probably both.
Your experience, while I have my doubts about its veracity, even if true,
would not disprove Doc's general statement on "most (professing) Christians
don't really believe the Resurrection"; because if they did, you undoubtedly
wouldn't need to need to put the crowbar in their wallets to get them to give
to God's work. Nor would clergy feel the need to apologize or try to coerce
the flock to give for the wrong reasons, not out of stewardship and a heart
for God.
Paul
Jon Volkoff wrote:
>
>
> Ever hear of a concept
> called stewardship? If you really give yourself as tribute to God then you
> really own nothing of yourself, but everything becomes the Lord's -- or
> rather, you are recognizing that all you have has always been His -- and you
> are merely a caretaker for what is His. .
Gee, let me think. What shall I do with the fruits of my stewardship?
Shall I use it to buy poontang for Doc? Or might Jesse Jackson be more deserving?
Its a hard decision! [Big Terry-style (g)]
Now, git onna telephone!
BP
emmitt maloney
Jon, Jon, Jon, stop for a minute and think. The only reason a person can be sent
to hell
is for not accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savor (disbelief in God). Now you
are saying that
if I am not a good steward of my money I will go to hell. So I can accept Jesus
and do all the necessary physical and spiritual things except be a good steward
of my money and I will go to hell.
Is that what you are saying Jon????????
Scroll down for more.
Jon Volkoff wrote:
Emmitt writes:
If the H.S. leads us in all things then how do we get a better reward when the
H.S.
leads one person to give more than the other?????
Oh I forgot, the H.S. doesn't lead you. You saved yourself.
>
>
> > Let me say it again. Giving is a function of the church. Worship is a
> > function of the heart.
>
> That's strange, since the Apostle Paul said
>
> "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give;
> not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."
> (2 Corinthians 9:7)
>
> Sure sounds like he's talking about a function of the heart to me.
>
> "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I
> give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me
> nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3)
>
> If you're not giving from your heart, but because it's a church function,
> maybe you're better off not giving, because it won't profit you anything in
> eternity.
Emmitt writes:
Jon, you sure have taken a lot of lessons from Steve.
You seem to have evaded the entire subject. The subject was worship of God.
Scott says we ship our worth to the one who teaches us and that is worship.
I think we have gone through worship. What your problem seems to be is you
don't really worship God so you give Scott money and you think that is going to
get you to heaven. It doesn't work that way Jon.
emmitt maloney
I notice that when you start getting your ass kicked you start calling people
asshole.
That is you style. Your sad Jon.
In the past you have said that you don't accept everything in the bible as being the
inspired word of God. We know that Scott doesn't. The reason Scott doesn't is he
would have to change
some of his teachings and most of his life style. So it is much easier to delete the
portions he doesn't like.
emmitt maloney
Jon Volkoff wrote:
Emmitt writes:
Hello Jon, hello Jon. You are pulling another Steve. The question isn't "I could",
the question is, "do I have to". Am I still under the law of tithing as laid down in
the O.T.
as Scott teaches or am I not? If I am still under the O.T. law of tithing then why
am I not
still doing blood sacrifices, keeping the sabbath etc.? Under the O.T. you had to
do this
in order to get to heaven. Do you get it now??????
Emmitt writes:
You doubt my experience???? I have been a Christian all my life and a born again
Christian for the last 30 years. I have been in numerous churches and a associate
with
mostly Christians. The reason Scott makes this statement is as I said before, he
wants
his congregation to think they are the only real christians because the others don't
believe in the resurrection. It is part of his mind game to keep the people from
leaving. Like he says, "if you leave this church you will go to hell". Are you
afraid to leave Scott's church Jon????
Jon Volkoff
> Jon, Jon, Jon, stop for a minute and think. The only reason a person can be
> sent to hell is for not accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior (disbelief
> in God). Now you are saying that if I am not a good steward of my money I
> will go to hell. So I can accept Jesus and do all the necessary physical and
> spiritual things except be a good steward of my money and I will go to hell.
> Is that what you are saying Jon????????
No, idiot. I am merely saying what is standard Protestant doctrine: "Faith
alone saves, but faith is not alone." You don't have to have anything but
faith in Christ to be saved; but if you really have that faith, visible change
will be inevitable. This includes the desire to give for God's glory.
OTOH, if in your theology worship of God must of necessity _exclude_ giving to
Him, then I would say that your so-called worship of God is a fraud.
> Jon Volkoff wrote:
>
> (...)
> > > Let me say it again. Giving is a function of the church. Worship is a
> > > function of the heart.
> >
> > That's strange, since the Apostle Paul said
> >
> > "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give;
> > not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver."
> > (2 Corinthians 9:7)
> >
> > Sure sounds like he's talking about a function of the heart to me.
> >
> > "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I
> > give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me
> > nothing." (1 Corinthians 13:3)
> >
> > If you're not giving from your heart, but because it's a church function,
> > maybe you're better off not giving, because it won't profit you anything in
> > eternity.
>
> Jon, you sure have taken a lot of lessons from Steve.
> You seem to have evaded the entire subject. The subject was worship of God.
> Scott says we ship our worth to the one who teaches us and that is worship.
> I think we have gone through worship. What your problem seems to be is you
> don't really worship God so you give Scott money and you think that is going
> to get you to heaven. It doesn't work that way Jon.
Are you incapable of arguing without a straw man? No one here (certainly not
me or Doc) ever asserted that worship consists of giving to the one that
taught you, nothing more and nothing less. You made that assertion. Shall we
try it again, dimwit?
"I'm making a simple point: the reason-for-being function of the church
->->->INCLUDES<-<-<- giving. I don't object to prayer being there; I don't
object to anointing being there; I don't object to the sanctifying work of the
Holy Spirit being there. God -- and I speak for Him today -- God doesn't
object to you seeing that all of that is there, as long as you put giving
there."
Visit Dr. Gene Scott's website at http://www.drgenescott.org
Jon Volkoff
> Jon Volkoff wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:57:57 GMT, emmitt maloney <emal...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Christ died to redeem from the curse of the Law. This does not mean
> > > > > that the Law itself is abolished or no longer of any use to
> > > > > Christians. (After all, it was the only Bible of the first century
> > > > > church.) It serves as our example, in this case to show that God
> > > > > rewards worshipful giving from the heart. Jesus said just as much:
> > > > > "Give and it shall be given unto you."
> > > >
> > > > Okay Jon. Do you still do blood sacrifices? Do you still follow any of
> > > > the Sabbath laws?
> > > > Just what O.T. laws do you follow that are not repeated in the N.T.?
> >
> > I could do blood sacrifices, but I don't need to, since they were all types
> > of Christ anyway, and He fulfilled that requirement once for all. I would
> > not sin, however, if I made a Levitical-type blood sacrifice for reasons
> > other than salvation; say, to see the type of Christ portrayed in it.
> >
> > I could keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord, but I prefer to regard every
> > day as holy unto the Lord. It would not be sin, however, if I kept the
> > Sabbath.
> >
> > I could give tithes to God, but I prefer to give offerings from the heart,
> > since for one thing I am not living in Israel, and there is no tribe of Levi
> > for me to support under the Jewish theocracy, not to mention a special
> > priesthood to collect the tithe. I would not sin, however, if I did
> > practice tithing because I thought it was a good thing as God's steward for
> > me to do.
> >
> > I could continue, but having said that, the real subject is: is the Law of
> > any use to Christians now that they have been freed from its curse? Paul
> > answers an emphatic "yes": "Now these things were our examples..." (1
> > Corinthians 10:6) From the Law one can learn lessons to apply to one's
> > spiritual life. There are more useful things in the Law than just the
> > ones repeated in the NT.
>
> Hello Jon, hello Jon. You are pulling another Steve. The question isn't "I
> could", the question is, "do I have to". Am I still under the law of tithing
> as laid down in the O.T. as Scott teaches or am I not? If I am still under
> the O.T. law of tithing then why am I not still doing blood sacrifices,
> keeping the sabbath etc.? Under the O.T. you had to do this in order to get
> to heaven. Do you get it now??????
More like, you are pulling another Emmitt. You seem to understand the meaning
of my phrase, "I could do..." Why is it you don't understand the meaning of my
phrase "...but I don't need to"? Is it time for that remedial English reading
course?
> (...)
> > > > You make my point Jon.
> > > > You are showing that people pretend to be christians. There is no doubt
> > > > about it.
> > > > But they are not really christians. Now when Dr. jean says "most
> > > > Christians do not believe in the Resurrection" who is he talking
> > > > about?? All the Christians I know believe in the Resurrection. Now the
> > > > problem that I see is, Dr. jean is a total liar or he does not know
> > > > many "real" christians. Take your pick. I would say probably both.
> >
> > Your experience, while I have my doubts about its veracity, even if true,
> > would not disprove Doc's general statement on "most (professing) Christians
> > don't really believe the Resurrection"; because if they did, you undoubtedly
> > wouldn't need to need to put the crowbar in their wallets to get them to
> > give to God's work. Nor would clergy feel the need to apologize or try to
> > coerce the flock to give for the wrong reasons, not out of stewardship and
> > a heart for God.
>
> You doubt my experience???? I have been a Christian all my life and a born
> again Christian for the last 30 years. I have been in numerous churches and
> a associate with mostly Christians. The reason Scott makes this statement
> is as I said before, he wants his congregation to think they are the only
> real christians because the others don't believe in the resurrection. It is
> part of his mind game to keep the people from leaving. Like he says, "if you
> leave this church you will go to hell". Are you afraid to leave Scott's
> church Jon????
Strange to hear you talking about mind games, since you don't even use the one
you've got.
emmitt maloney
When you get ass kicked you can only call names.
You should stop and think about what you are saying before you write it.
You very clearly pointed out Luke 19 as saying it was speaking about money or
abilities.
In Luke 19 the one who was not a good steward of his money was put in hell.
Now you are trying to weasel out by saying, well if you are saved you will be a
good steward of
your money. You keep modifying your original statements but you are only confusing
yourself.
Jon it is better to be thought to be stupid than to open your mouth and remove all
doubts.
Jon Volkoff wrote:
Emmitt writes:
My assertion was, you don't know any better.
>
>
> "I'm making a simple point: the reason-for-being function of the church
> ->->->INCLUDES<-<-<- giving. I don't object to prayer being there; I don't
> object to anointing being there; I don't object to the sanctifying work of the
> Holy Spirit being there. God -- and I speak for Him today -- God doesn't
> object to you seeing that all of that is there, as long as you put giving
> there."
Emmitt writes:
When you lose you scream "STRAW MAN, STRAW MAN".
Why not just call me more names?????
emmitt maloney
Jon Volkoff wrote:
Emmitt writes:
Lets go real slow here. Scott claims that you have to tithe to get to heaven. he
says the
more you tithe the better your place in heaven will be. He then uses O.T. law to
prove
his points. He is putting his people under the O.T. law. I am saying that if that
part of the law is still valid why not some or all the rest?
DO YOU GET IT NOW???????
Emmitt writes:
Get your ass kicked again Jon? Sorry about that.
>
>
Elder Perm Poom
<Pine.WNT.4.10.10104100...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
> I could give tithes to God, but I prefer to give offerings from the heart
How do you feel about having a bully demand your "offerings
from the heart" on TV? Do you feel grateful that a computer is
being used to carefully track your "offerings from the heart"
to make sure your heart is in the right place? Is it right to
ban you from some services if the computer says your "offerings
from the heart" aren't coming up to quota? Do you like being
told that if your "offerings from the heart" don't meet a
certain percentage of your income, you won't have a place in
heaven?
Elder Perm Poom
<Pine.WNT.4.10.10104092...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
> Sorry, but waving your arms frantically shrilling "It's not
> true" doesn't cut it for reasoned discussion.
Reasoned discussion?!
You're an intellectual joke. You quote complete hooey as if
it's fact! And then you say, "Just because Perm Poom says it
it's horse shit, that doesn't mean it isn't true..." Well put
the lie to me. Pick up your phone and call the Minister at
your local United Methodist or Episcopal Church. Ask them if
they believe Christ performed miracles and rose from the dead.
Let me know what you find out. I think you'll be surprised.
How long has it been since you were in a real church, anyway?
> David Cloud is not a "Sister Sal" anyhow. All perfectionists
> are fundamentalists, but not all fundamentalists are
> perfectionists. He's one that isn't, and most certainly
> believes in salvation and fellowship by grace tbrough faith
> in Christ alone without works of the law.
Guess what? You can be right about one thing, and still
be completely wrong about other things. If you can't see
the obvious slant to that horse pucky you posted, you don't
know what you are looking at. That was a classic example
of denominational propaganda. It wasn't worth the time it
took to read it.
You fancy yourself smarter than the rest of the
UN-iversitites. Stuff like this makes me doubt it.
Get a clue. You're being lied to and you don't
even know it.
Elder Perm Poom
<Pine.WNT.4.10.10104092...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
> Everything. If you think he's doing a good work for God and are profiting
> from his teaching, the Apostle Paul taught through the Holy Spirit that you
> should share with the one that you received teaching benefit from.
And Christ Himself taught that you should give to Him by
giving to the least among you.
I take Christ's word over Paul's any day of the week.
Besides, Paul wasn't asking for mansions, fancy horses
and prostitutes. He was asking for support for his
ministry.
Blessings
Elder Perm Poom
Jon Volkoff
> I take Christ's word over Paul's any day of the week.
Too bad you think they might contradict, since Paul got his information
directly talking with Christ like the other Apostles.
Jon Volkoff
> In article
> <Pine.WNT.4.10.10104092...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
> Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
>
"If you have the facts, pound the facts.
If you have the law, pound the law.
If you don't have either one, pound the table."
Here's a web page that lists churches that are receptive to the
modernistic, Christ-denying and Bible-denying work of the Jesus Seminar.
I notice the list contains Congregational churches, United Churches of
Christ, United Methodist Churches, Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian,
Christian, etc. Need I say more?
Linkname: Westar Institute Directory of Churches
URL: http://www.jesusseminar.com/Membership/Churches/churches.html
Guess that washes PP's charges of "being lied to" down the turlet...
emmitt maloney
"Paul got his information directly talking with Christ like the other Apostles".
Resurrection? There are a couple of paragraphs where God spoke to Paul
with a voice in the book of acts when he was converted but Paul did not spend time
with
Jesus when he was on earth.
When Paul wrote his portion of the bible his writings were inspired by the H.S. as
with all the other Apostles. The other Apostles did walk and talk with Jesus when he
was
on earth but not Paul.
Elder Perm Poom
<Pine.WNT.4.10.10104101...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
> Here's a web page that lists churches that are receptive to the
> modernistic, Christ-denying and Bible-denying work of the Jesus Seminar.
Instead of trying to define the beliefs of these churches by
your narrow definition of subscription to some seminar, why
not call up a minister and ask them if they believe Christ
died and rose again? Or would that disturb the delicate
straw man you've built up here?
Go call a Methodist minister and ask him if he believes
Christ performed miracles. Go on... do it or shut up
with your "my church can beat up your church" arguments.
Are you retarded or drunk or mentally ill or something?
This bit of illogic is extreme even for you!
emmitt maloney
You know Perm, I think Jon is having a bad day.
Jon Volkoff
> In article
> <Pine.WNT.4.10.10104101...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>,
> Jon Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's a web page that lists churches that are receptive to the
> > modernistic, Christ-denying and Bible-denying work of the Jesus Seminar.
>
> Instead of trying to define the beliefs of these churches by
> your narrow definition of subscription to some seminar, why
> not call up a minister and ask them if they believe Christ
> died and rose again? Or would that disturb the delicate
> straw man you've built up here?
A key feature of Jesus Seminar teaching is that they deny all the miracles
in the Bible, including but not limited to the Resurrection. Anybody with an
ounce of sense (obviously not you) knows that each church being receptive
to Jesus Seminar material means the clergy in each church approves of the
material or is at least tolerant of it.
Only a nutcase like you would deny the well-established fact that modernism
has for the most part replaced historical Christianity in the mainline
denominations. If you insist on making a total jackass out of yourself in
front of the world, I'm only too happy to oblige.
Jon Volkoff
> "Paul got his information directly talking with Christ like the other
> Apostles."
>
> Are you sure about that Jon? I though Pauls ministry started long after the
> Resurrection? There are a couple of paragraphs where God spoke to Paul
> with a voice in the book of acts when he was converted but Paul did not spend
> time with Jesus when he was on earth. When Paul wrote his portion of the
> bible his writings were inspired by the H.S. as with all the other Apostles.
> The other Apostles did walk and talk with Jesus when he was on earth but not
> Paul.
"But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is
not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it,
but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11,12)
"But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called
me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the
heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up
to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia,
and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to
Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the
apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (Galatians 1:15-19)
Three years being taught by the revelation of Jesus in Arabia is what he seems
to be saying. Just like the other apostles.
emmitt maloney
All the writing in the bible were writen under the inspiration of the H.S.
"He seem to be saying". (Not close) Paul is not saying that he walked and talked
with
Jesus in the same physical sense that the othe Apostles did.
Elder Perm Poom
<Pine.WNT.4.10.1010...@admiral.eideticscorp.com>, Jon
Volkoff <vol...@eideticscorp.com> wrote:
>
> A key feature of Jesus Seminar teaching... blah blah blah...
I told you I'm not interested in your definition of these
churches based on one seminar at a Howard Johnsons. You
are parroting religious sales pitch that is full of lies.
> Only a nutcase like you would deny the well-established fact that
> modernism has for the most part replaced historical Christianity
> in the mainline denominations.
I know Gene Scott has worked long and hard to convince you
that every other church out there is evil compared to his,
but it just isn't true. Go out and visit one of these
churches you're condemning. Ask the pastor a few questions.
Maybe you might find that local churches aren't the snake
pits Gene Scott makes them out to be. I know for sure that
you'll find that your Jesus Seminar information is full of
bald faced lies. If you want, I'll mail you the dime for
the phone call.
I repeat the part that you ignored...
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:28:42 -0700, perm...@mcchurch.com (Elder Perm
Poom) wrote:
>
> > Instead of trying to define the beliefs of these churches by
> > your narrow definition of subscription to some seminar, why
> > not call up a minister and ask them if they believe Christ
> > died and rose again? Or would that disturb the delicate
> > straw man you've built up here?
Blessings
Dr. Dave Barnett
"Elder Perm Poom" <perm...@mcchurch.com> wrote in message
news:permpoom-090...@pm03-08.ktb.net...
> In article <3AD23A13...@qwest.net>, Mari Silver <t...@qwest.net>
wrote:
>
> > Most of the "Christians" I know who don't believe in the resurrection in
> > the literal sense are Episcopalian, Methodist or (gasp!!) Presbyterian.
>
> Having been raised in the Methodist church, and having family
> in the Episcopal clergy, I can tell you that the literal
> ressurection is an integral part of both of these denominations.
> I sincerely doubt that Presbyterians are any different.
> I think you are mistaken.
>
As an ordained Presbyterian minister for 15 years, I can tell you that
Presbyterians being a confessional church (that is, affirming the Apostles,
Nicene and especially the Westminster Confession), believe in the bodily
(physical) resurrection of Jesus.
As in all denominations, there are few whackos who get attention by
espousing contrary notions as a way of appealing to constituencies who, if
not ignorant of historical faith, can only be described as "post-modern warm
fuzzy-ists."
Elder Perm Poom
<295884F12A74E14B.ACCC62AD...@lp.airnews.net>, "Dr.
Dave Barnett" <drdave...@airmail.net> wrote:
> As an ordained Presbyterian minister for 15 years, I can tell you that
> Presbyterians being a confessional church (that is, affirming the Apostles,
> Nicene and especially the Westminster Confession), believe in the bodily
> (physical) resurrection of Jesus.
Thanks.
> As in all denominations, there are few whackos who get attention by
> espousing contrary notions as a way of appealing to constituencies who, if
> not ignorant of historical faith, can only be described as "post-modern warm
> fuzzy-ists."
I can't think of anything warmer or fuzzier than the actual truth.