The Word of God

How Important is the Word of God to the Church Today?

Published on December 3, 2004 By preacherman In Religion

How important is the Word of God for the church today? Does the church seem to be a falling away from the truth of God's Word supplanting it with a gospel more palatable to the flesh?

preacherman

Comments (Page 5)

preacherman

on Dec 05, 2004

A Nation Void of God
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power abd Godhead, so that they are without excuse.

The order is this a nation (or individual) has the free choice to reject the creator. It would kind'a be like a child rebelling against his/her parents. But in the spiritual ralm the creations rejection of the creator will not find any excuse.

believe in God. I have plenty of faith.

I can accept you say "you believe in God, and have plenty of faith." I hope your faith is in something that will stand the test of time.

preacherman

preacherman

on Dec 05, 2004

Sorry philomedy I hit the submit button before finishing the thought.

The nation or individual willfully rejects God:
God turns them over to a reprobate mind- God gives them up unto vile affections: for even thir womwen did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiveing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Sounds a lot like America today? Heh?

preacherman

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 05, 2004

"So appears from most of the discussion that they are a vast majortiy who feel a nation does not need to recognize God.
That a nation would be fine if there was no involvement from God?"

A government should not advocate or favor one religion over the other. A little thing in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution called the "Establishment Clause" was put there exactly for that reason. The Founders were all too familiar of the entaglements of religion and government. While they believed in religious freedom for all citizens, they did not want the government getting involved in it. Period. The monarchies in Europe and the Church were far too eager to scratch the other's back in order to shore up their political power and it led to tyranny and a lack of religious freedom. The Founders believed the best way to preserve religious freedom for all is to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. That is not to say that we, as individuals, cannot hold our own religious beliefs. It means we are not entitled to impose them on the whole of society.

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 05, 2004

preacherman: "If you study out the scriptures you'll find that the spirit of anti-christ is a spirit that dwells in people who don not believe Christ was God in the flesh, which would mean the individual rejects the Word of God."

Implying that those who do not exactly share your religious beliefs are tantamount to the anti-Christ is not going to win people over to your side of the discussion. You seem like a reasonable person but this line of thinking makes you appear to be very intollerant and disrespectful of those who disagree with your beliefs. I don't ever recall Jesus calling anyone the anti-Christ for not following him. Just because a person does not necessarily believe in something does not mean they are "against" it or "anti" anything. This is starting to sound a lot like the whole "with us or against us" mentality. If we don't believe in your version or interpretation of the bible, then we must be the anti-christ? Does that sound normal to you? People have their own methodologies of interpreting the Bible and many of them are deeply spiritual, religious, people who simply have a different methodology of interpreting the bible. They are Christians...how does that make them the anti-Christ? What about people of other religious faiths...they are good people, spiritual people...but because they have faith in another form of religion that equates them to the anti-Christ? Sorry, but I think you are misguided in your analysis on this one.

Molly0597

on Dec 05, 2004

Reply #64 By: T_Bone4Justice - 12/5/2004 9:34:39 PM
preacherman: "If you study out the scriptures you'll find that the spirit of anti-christ is a spirit that dwells in people who don not believe Christ was God in the flesh, which would mean the individual rejects the Word of God."

Implying that those who do not exactly share your religious beliefs are tantamount to the anti-Christ is not going to win people over to your side of the discussion. You seem like a reasonable person but this line of thinking makes you appear to be very intollerant and disrespectful of those who disagree with your beliefs. I don't ever recall Jesus calling anyone the anti-Christ for not following him. Just because a person does not necessarily believe in something does not mean they are "against" it or "anti" anything. This is starting to sound a lot like the whole "with us or against us" mentality. If we don't believe in your version or interpretation of the bible, then we must be the anti-christ? Does that sound normal to you? People have their own methodologies of interpreting the Bible and many of them are deeply spiritual, religious, people who simply have a different methodology of interpreting the bible. They are Christians...how does that make them the anti-Christ? What about people of other religious faiths...they are good people, spiritual people...but because they have faith in another form of religion that equates them to the anti-Christ? Sorry, but I think you are misguided in your analysis on this one.

I agree, and I gave you an insightful.

"Anti" means against, and I don't think not believing that Jesus was the messiah makes the person against Christ.

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 05, 2004

preacherman: "God turns them over to a reprobate mind- God gives them up unto vile affections: for even thir womwen did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiveing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

I believe you are quoting Romans 1:26 but this biblical passage could mean many different things. For example, Nelson writes "Paul didn't write it as a condemnation of homosexuality, but as a criticism of Greek behavior in temple worship. Greeks often incorporated sexual behavior in temple worship. Paul says we all fall short of the glory of God. You don't find Paul saying that all homosexuals are going to hell; he says nobody has it right." You see, it is all up to what methodology you employ to interpret these passages and who's to say that yours is any better than Nelson's or anyone else's? You are perfectly within your right, as an individual, to interpret this passage to mean whatever you believe it to mean but others have the right to believe it means something else entirely. So who's to say which one is correct let alone have the arrogance to demand that the government mandate one of these interpretations over the other via governmental laws that only serve to discriminate against a politically vulnerable group?

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 05, 2004

Deleted duplicate post...sorry!

T_Bone4Justice

on Dec 05, 2004

~Molly: "I agree, and I gave you an insightful."

Thank you Molly...I humbly accept.

ttraider82

on Dec 05, 2004

Interesting comment that I think almost any Christian community encounters. I think though that most religions face a dilema of how to encounter the 'modern world' with their dogmas and doctrines that sometimes seem to be inconvenient in the world. Being a Catholic, many parishes encounter this dilema, and sadly, many do a less than stellar job of it. Despite the efforts of the leadership of the Church especially in Rome, many parishes choose to ignore the Gospel and teach a 'social Gospel' where it is ok to let your brother die on the starve on the side of the road when you have a meal in your hand. So long as your a 'nice person' things are ok. Few people that actually study the Bible can claim that a requirement for salvation is 'niceness'. Most would claim faith enacted with love for neighbor is. I used to claim, 'I am not a bad guy. Never did drugs. Never killed anyone. Never did this or that.' But I never did anything! I never helped others. Never believed in Christ with my heart. Ok. adios. Me done.

preacherman

on Dec 06, 2004

You get an insightful ttraider82

That's the faith described in James2:14-26. When this action is the results of the Spirit of God in a believer- it's praise and worship.
What about when it done out of the rules and regulations in the church?

preacherman

philomedy

on Dec 06, 2004

But in the spiritual ralm the creations rejection of the creator will not find any excuse.

I fail to see how not bowing down to God as an ultimate source of morality is rejecting Him.

God turns them over to a reprobate mind- God gives them up unto vile affections: for even thir womwen did change the natural use into that which is against nature, and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiveing in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.Sounds a lot like America today? Heh?

Um...not really considering how homosexuals are far outnumbered by straight individuals. The passage also seems to imply that women have one natural use...were I a woman I would be rather insulted.

On a closing note, this also assumes that homosexuality is a choice, which happens to be a faulty assumption. If homosexuality is a choice, then so is being straight. I assure you, I am not straight because I choose to be...it is just what I am. If I were presented with a man and woman, I would not stand and ponder for any length of time before deciding that I would rather boink the female. It's just how it is. Saying that homosexuality is a choice is like saying that, as I sit here typing, it is my choice to eat the apple sitting next to me, or to eat the desk. Technically, I suppose there is a choice...but logically?

preacherman

on Dec 06, 2004

Don't you think it goes back to what the scriptures say about the " man changing the color of his skin or the spots on the leapord" philomedy. There are desire inherient in man that he can not change. For some it may be homosexuality, for some beating their wives, for some it is allowing the opver-powering of alchol/drugs to cause them to devour their family, for some cheating their neighbor- if it's not a choice doesn't it have to be something in them that is inherited?

The Biblie teaches that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Our sin is not our actions, yet is the inherient tendancies that a man and woman (all) are born with- the evidence is the sin of Adam & Eve- disobedience to the Word of God? All God said, is of every tree of the garden you can freely eat but of the tree of the knowledge of godd and evil- don't touch. Did they make a choice philomedy? Did they choose to be disobedient or was there sin like every other man & woman- inherient.

preacherman

philomedy

on Dec 06, 2004

Don't you think it goes back to what the scriptures say about the " man changing the color of his skin or the spots on the leapord" philomedy

You're gonna have to tell me what they say...I'm really not familiar.

if it's not a choice doesn't it have to be something in them that is inherited?

Inherited is not the right word, since that implies familial lineage. I would say naturally occurring.

The Biblie teaches that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Our sin is not our actions, yet is the inherient tendancies that a man and woman (all) are born with- the evidence is the sin of Adam & Eve- disobedience to the Word of God? All God said, is of every tree of the garden you can freely eat but of the tree of the knowledge of godd and evil- don't touch. Did they make a choice philomedy? Did they choose to be disobedient or was there sin like every other man & woman- inherient.

I'm really not a big fan of the original sin thing. I personally refuse to accept that being born was wrong of me, and that the sheer fact that I came into existence is enough to make me a sinner. Adam and Eve clearly made a choice...but was being born mine?

preacherman

on Dec 06, 2004

Don't you think it goes back to what the scriptures say about the " man changing the color of his skin or the spots on the leapord"

The scriptures say in Jeremiah 13:23 that the heart of an individual that is accustomed to doing evil can not do good- the evil kind'a becomes the primary nature. It's all its ever known. It require something to help it (heart) change.

The inheritence comes from the thought that it does not matter who would have resided ian the garden, you, me , my wife or your girlfriend, we would have all done the smae as Adam and Eve. I can believe it because I fulfilled that truthuntil I was twenty-eight years old, and never realizze I was disobedient to the Word of God. You are correct- "it was naturally occuring" in me my nature.

The scripture says "since by man (Adam) came death- why? because he was disobedient to God's Word- I would have done the same thing. For as in Adam all die, because of sin, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. There is life if we trust in the sacrificial death of Christ. He who knew no sin became sin that we might have the righteousness of Chirst.

preacherman

philomedy

on Dec 07, 2004

The scriptures say in Jeremiah 13:23 that the heart of an individual that is accustomed to doing evil can not do good- the evil kind'a becomes the primary nature. It's all its ever known. It require something to help it (heart) change.

Thats a bit more fatalistic than I care to be.

The inheritence comes from the thought that it does not matter who would have resided ian the garden, you, me , my wife or your girlfriend, we would have all done the smae as Adam and Eve.

Maybe we would have, maybe we wouldn't have. We don't know. What we do know is that Adam and Eve did, and we did not. I don't see why that sin is inherited to us.

You are correct- "it was naturally occuring" in me my nature.

I was referring to homosexuality only...as for the drug abuse and wife beating, I do believe those are choices. Perhaps eventually they cease to be, but the first instance is certainly a choice.

Why is it impossible for an official with faith to make decisions that would agree and adhere to the undertones of our unreligious laws because they follow morals? Why can't a person with faith have intelligence and serve their office as dutifully as a non-faith based person? It almost wreaks of "Only the ignorant would worship a God they cannot see"..Philomedy is a well spoken individual who has somewhat tried to be delicate in this situation...yet keeps tossing in preacherman's face "You cannot Prove God"..as if God has no real meaning to preacherman because he can't point him out on the street...as if the worship of the diety lessons preacher's arguement..because he has no proof.

It is not impossible for a religious official to uphold non-religious laws. In fact, I would say it is mandatory for a religious official to do so. However, it is not right for that official to force his religious values politically onto a nation.

Also, I would never say that belief in God is ignorant, or I would be calling myself ignorant. I just think that basing morality on God is irrational. I'm not saying that God has no meaning, simply that we should not blindly believe what God supposedly said. If some guy on the corner told me homosexuality was wrong, I would not disregard the fact the homosexuals don't hurt anyone just by being homosexuals. Why should it be any different because God is the one that says its wrong?

Belief in God doesn't lessen arguments about morality, but using God as a crutch certainly weakens it. I can tell you whether I think something is moral or not, and point to an example to show you why, and you can point to an example to show why you think I'm wrong, and we can go from there. However, when you declare something immoral "because God said so," what can I say other than "I think you're wrong," and what can you say other than "I think I'm right?"

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!