"Sort by same/sort by different

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: We are all as trees and have seasons. In all things, I believe we are to be led by the Spirit, making us instant in season and out.

When I come across someone whom the Spirit has prepared their heart to know this revelation, the Spirit in me will practically pull it out of my mouth. Other times, I have tried to bring it up out of season and stumbled and tangled my words so badly it was futile. I learned the hard way (in most things actually, lol) to let the Spirit lead. Resting in Him is not as easy as it sounds. Blessings....

[dajomaco]

:cloud9: We are all as trees and have seasons. In all things, I believe we are to be led by the Spirit, making us instant in season and out.

When I come across someone whom the Spirit has prepared their heart to know this revelation, the Spirit in me will practically pull it out of my mouth. Other times, I have tried to bring it up out of season and stumbled and tangled my words so badly it was futile. I learned the hard way (in most things actually, lol) to let the Spirit led. Resting in Him is not as easy as it sounds. Blessings....

:dsunny: :cloud9:

[jabcat]

Bell's been maligned for softening the Gospel; for crafting a new age, feel good, bastardized version of Christianity that is theologically neutered and built for mass consumption. He's been vilified and demonized for perverting the message of Jesus to grow his brand.

Baloney.

Unfortunately, about the only things I can point to either Rob Bell or Carleton Pearson about to anyone who is considering UR as someone to listen to, is that they've questioned hell.  Other than that I believe they've both gone off some deep ends that are not truly helpful.

There are more specifics, but I don't want to hijack the thread, just comment on this as his name has come up a couple of times recently. 

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: @ Jab....I know where you're going with this, and I agree. I've found deep revelations like this tend to have to go through a sort of "pendulum effect." They don't wait and let it settle until balance comes, and so the pendulum swings too far to one direction. Sorta the same as trying to give out bread before it has been "baked" in us. Sadly, sometimes they never let it swing back, and find the straight path. Let's pray they do. Blessings...

[HungerForTruth]

jabcat - I understand what you are saying and agree.

I was just making a point on how the so called church attacks its own when they deviate from their perception of truth.

BTW - did you actually read Bells' book?  He never really comes out in dogmatic support - he just asks the questions.   

But yeah.  I get what you are saying, but I support him fwiw. 

[jabcat]

jabcat - I understand what you are saying and agree.

I was just making a point on how the so called church attacks its own when they deviate from their perception of truth.

BTW - did you actually read Bells' book?  He never really comes out in dogmatic support - he just asks the questions.   

But yeah.  I get what you are saying, but I support him fwiw.

In my original longer post I agreed with you about his questioning hell no doubt brought knee-jerk reaction from many, so in essence I was agreeing with you about that.  I just deleted much of my comments to keep from hijacking, and that was one of them.  Should have left it in there.

I know his MO in his book was to question/suggest/explore.  Probably my main concerns have come AFTER his book, with some of the theological positions he's taken and some specific quotes regarding his apparent distrust and disrespect of the scriptures (paraphrase - "we're in trouble if our main defense is 2,000 year old letters", and "we can't just do what the Bible says..it needs to be constantly reinterpreted";   the inclusivity of others from other religions as already saved, i.e., what he calls "good people" (he's now Oprah's "spiritual adviser" [thus perhaps part of the New Age accusations?]).  If he'd stopped at Love Wins we might not be discussing this right now.  But IMO, like so many others (myself included) when we begin to question orthodox interpretations and traditions, we best be truly open and honest with the Holy Spirit as to when to stop and where to hang our hat, so we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater (end up apostate, "I'm OK, you're OK, it's all in the mind", etc., etc.).   :2c:

IMO, questioning hell and "what happens" is worthwhile and can be God-led.   :thumbsup:  But I've also experienced the danger.  I believe by our traditions we can make the Word of God of no effect - that's part of why we're all here.  But I also believe by our imaginations and descent into deceit we can also make the Word of God of no effect - not why we're here.   

Blessings.

[HungerForTruth]

jabcat - I understand what you are saying and agree.

I was just making a point on how the so called church attacks its own when they deviate from their perception of truth.

BTW - did you actually read Bells' book?  He never really comes out in dogmatic support - he just asks the questions.   

But yeah.  I get what you are saying, but I support him fwiw.

In my original longer post I agreed with you about his questioning hell no doubt brought knee-jerk reaction from many, so in essence I was agreeing with you about that.  I just deleted much of my comments to keep from hijacking, and that was one of them.  Should have left it in there.

I know his MO in his book was to question/suggest/explore.  Probably my main concerns have come AFTER his book, with some of the theological positions he's taken and some specific quotes regarding his apparent distrust and disrespect of the scriptures (paraphrase - "we're in trouble if our main defense is 2,000 year old letters", and "we can't just do what the Bible says..it needs to be constantly reinterpreted";   the inclusivity of others from other religions as already saved, i.e., what he calls "good people" (he's now Oprah's "spiritual adviser" [thus perhaps part of the New Age accusations?]).  If he'd stopped at Love Wins we might not be discussing this right now.  But IMO, like so many others (myself included) when we begin to question orthodox interpretations and traditions, we best be truly open and honest with the Holy Spirit as to when to stop and where to hang our hat, so we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater (end up apostate, "I'm OK, you're OK, it's all in the mind", etc., etc.).   :2c:

IMO, questioning hell and "what happens" is worthwhile and can be God-led.   :thumbsup:  But I've also experienced the danger.  I believe by our traditions we can make the Word of God of no effect - that's part of why we're all here.  But I also believe by our imaginations and descent into deceit we can also make the Word of God of no effect - not why we're here.   

Blessings.

Great point Jabcat.  You see I have had no other exposure to the man other than his book Love Wins.  I have not followed any of his dealings after the book and was not aware of any of the things you posted above.  Of course I would not support that sort of thing.  Gone off the deep end it seems?  Anyway.  If we rewind to when the book was written (which was all I know about him) I thought it was sad how that went down with the church. 

Thanks for bringing me up to speed though.  I thank you for that.

[jabcat]

:)   :2thumbs:

[eaglesway]

Just as grace is an excuse for licentiousness for some..... Some will use the message of UR to throw off the bonds of scripture, even where those bonds are for our edification and protection. In 40 years of faith and ministry I have seen that there is no good thing that some person will not subvert for their own profit and glory.

I am not sayng that Rob Bell has done that... I really don't know why he is doing what he is doing.

When someone questions the interpretation of the scriptures they do not bother me.

When someone relegates the scriptures to "old letters", now that bothers me.

There is a definite pull, like a pendulum swing, to go too far in the other direction, when ever we are coming out of some misunderstanding.

Let everyone work out his own salvation in awe and reverence.

[jabcat]

Just as grace is an excuse for licentiousness for some..... Some will use the message of UR to throw off the bonds of scripture, even where those bonds are for our edification and protection. In 40 years of faith and ministry I have seen that there is no good thing that some person will not subvert for their own profit and glory.

I am not sayng that Rob Bell has done that... I really don't know why he is doing what he is doing.

When someone questions the interpretation of the scriptures they do not bother me.

When someone relegates the scriptures to "old letters", now that bothers me.

There is a definite pull, like a pendulum swing, to go too far in the other direction, when ever we are coming out of some misunderstanding.

Let everyone work out his own salvation in awe and reverence.

I agree.  I should have been more clear about the context of "we have to constantly be re-interpreting the scriptures".  The context was, what was the culture/accepted norms at the time, and if it still applies to us today.   Even more specifically,  what the Bible (New Testament) clearly says is sin, within our current culture we should now accept as being OK - despite what the "outdated" scriptures say.   I guess we'd need to ask Rob to be sure why he says we should now accept clear sin, but is it because now we're "more enlightened" and "things change so we need to change with it" (again, "we can't just do what the Bible says")?  Anyway, that's the understanding for me in what he was saying within context, but only he could say for sure. 

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I've seen the fruit of this around here when the concept of His unconditional love was realized, and in a way UR is the end fruit of this and so I think the same thing applies. What happened here was, there were some who took that and ran with it (pendulum again) and then the "I'm ok, you're ok" attitude hit and all kinds of sin was ignored because, after all, "we wouldn't be walking in unconditional love if we didn't". 

But what they forgot is, after Jesus spared the woman taken in adultery (representative of all us as souls who have joined ourselves to other gods), He said, go and sin no more. That was a commandment from God, not a suggestion! My  :2c: Blessings....

[jabcat]

Yes Card.

I was thinking about this some more this morning, trying to think of how to even better explain the "constantly reinterpret scripture"...my take-away is, the idea presented in context was not "interpret it correctly", which I agree we should attempt to do.  But it seemed to me it was more of a keep RE-interpreting based on the times/culture, what fits "today" rather than relying on "2,000 year old outdated letters".  IMO, RELATIVISM - which I basically reject.   I see it more as proper application, whatever that may mean or cost us - not "what do I want it to say today to fit how I/we want to live".   :2c:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Exactly. But they don't realize is, for something to be eternal it has to by nature have spiritual meaning, for only the Spirit is eternal, the flesh withers like grass. Sin, which is also a noun, a principality, not just an action verb, being spirit, is also side by side with the eternal One, to provide a choice, until He decides game over. So the sin would have to be the same principle today as it was 2000 years ago, or 500 years ago, not time relevant at all.

This principle was shown to me one day when I was pondering the meaning behind not dressing in women's clothes if you're a man, or vice versa with women, as in, could I really be expected to not wear slacks? It occurred to me then,  it couldn't be as cut and dried as it sounds, because after all, back in Jesus's time period, men wore what, to our standards today, would amount to a woman's long dress.

What hit me was, the sin was not in the garments themselves, it was in the motive of the heart in wearing them, ie. trying to change what God made them via their clothing choices. It's a form of deception and rebellion, one that's rampant today. My  :2c: Blessings....

[CHB]

:cloud9: Exactly. But they don't realize is, for something to be eternal it has to by nature have spiritual meaning, for only the Spirit is eternal, the flesh withers like grass. Sin, which is also a noun, a principality, not just an action verb, being spirit, is also side by side with the eternal One, to provide a choice, until He decides game over. So the sin would have to be the same principle today as it was 2000 years ago, or 500 years ago, not time relevant at all.

This principle was shown to me one day when I was pondering the meaning behind not dressing in women's clothes if you're a man, or vice versa with women, as in, could I really be expected to not wear slacks? It occurred to me then,  it couldn't be as cut and dried as it sounds, because after all, back in Jesus's time period, men wore what, to our standards today, would amount to a woman's long dress.

What hit me was, the sin was not in the garments themselves, it was in the motive of the heart in wearing them, ie. trying to change what God made them via their clothing choices. It's a form of deception and rebellion, one that's rampant today. My  :2c: Blessings....

Hi Cardinal,

About the dress code: There are a few Churches that really frown on a woman wearing pants. My daughter in law for instance, I don't believe I have ever seen her wear a pair of pants. Adam and Eve wore fig leaves, then God made them coats of skin. I think these garments looked pretty much the same. I read of some men in the Bible wearing skirts,or kilts. The laymen of today I don't believe, ever think about what was worn back in the Old Testament days, they just apply the scriptures to today without searching to see if it actually applies to us today. I think the dress code has been switched from what it use to be.

CHB

[jabcat]

I'm beating around the bush, trying to not bring up a specific topic that's been hammered to death here lately - making more of a general point as fits the thread.   The specific issue in question with Rob Bell was not about things like dress, length of hair, etc.  It was a specific sexual sin that Paul clearly taught about, instructing the church that is a vile sin (in line with murder, adultery, fornication, etc.) with dire consequences - and he was saying the church is about ready to embrace it today, and indicating that's OK, that we shouldn't rely on outdated ideas from "the Bible that needs constantly reinterpreted to fit the times".

[jabcat]

Wadif, any time you want to pull this thread back on topic go for it.  This is what our discussions tend to do when enough ideas are presented that we can shoot off in different directions with.     :hijacked:   :grin:

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Hi CHB....good to see you on here again!

I know there are churches that demand it. I'm saying it doesn't apply the WAY they are trying to apply it. 

This was one of the first things the Lord taught me on, because I was under pressure when I first came to Him, because where I was going didn't want me to wear slacks or makeup (but they were more lenient on makeup, lol, because the pastor said he never saw an old barn that didn't look better with a coat of paint-no joke!).

So He gave me the above reasoning and I went back in and told the person who tried to bring me into line the very next week. Of course, can you quess what He did to me the next week? I tried to get dressed normally in slacks, and I couldn't, I was grieving the Spirit. I was like, "What?! You just told me I didn't have to dress like this, last week!"

So what came was that the point was to be instant in season and out, obedience is better than sacrifice. If I was willing to obey what He told me one week, why not if He decided something different the next week for His own purposes? So it turned out to be two weeks of dressing as they did, no make-up. I didn't have any idea how long it would last, or if it was permanent. It didn't matter, what did matter was doing what He said to do.

Once that was established in my heart, I was free to dress according to my own desires. The exception was when I went to another such church, and of my own free will, I dressed like them, so as not to be a stumbling block to my brethren should He decide to use me with them in some way. This is how His laws are written on our hearts.

He showed me this is where the Jews missed it when He appeared in a different way, and where we all miss Him from time to time. He wants us to be LED, but we want to walk in the comfort and FAMILIARITY of what He did yesterday.

It's the same thing as when the Israelites fornicated under every green tree. Green speaks of life. They saw the life of the Spirit in something, and they wanted it to be there in that same way every single time, and so joined themselves to something had no life in it anymore, because the Spirit had moved on. The Spirit moves to makes US move. My  :2c:....blessings....

[sheila]

 good stuff you're sharing,Bex

[Wadif I.M. Rong]

Wadif, any time you want to pull this thread back on topic go for it.  This is what our discussions tend to do when enough ideas are presented that we can shoot off in different directions with.     :hijacked:   :grin:

I am not sure what the topic is, and I have looked all around and do not see the topic police any where. And if they show up they just might say "Wednesday is freedom from the topic laws day. Sin on!"

Fascinating stuff. I'm all ears.

[Wadif I.M. Rong]

I noticed we were stuck at 666 views so I am just here once more specifically to wage war on the beast.  I think he's gone.

As you were...

[Cardinal]

 :laughing7:

:cloud9: Threads have a life of their own sometimes. We try to stay on topic, but one thing leads to another leads to another leads to.....well, you know..... :winkgrin:

[Wadif I.M. Rong]

Now we ARE off topic thanks to me.

So what are other scriptures that can not be anything but cultural?  I mean you have provided perspective I have never once heard or thought of in my entire life.  By our standards Jesus And the apostles wore dresses!!!  Well I never... :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :thumbsup:  (it's Jesus and the twelve)

[Wadif I.M. Rong]

So ok, that was a lame attempt. How about this:
Some of Jesus' followers carried swords, so do you think Rob Bell should carry a sword???

Just kidding. Well, kind of.

Please pretend I never posted.

[Wadif I.M. Rong]

To the pure all things are pure. Period.  End of statement.

On your mark, get set, go!! 

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Love your sense of humor..... :thumbsup: