What is our duty to God as Christians

[Right Divider]

I know fully well what is in scripture. I just disagree with what it means to you.

You are extremely dense, as it means exactly what it says.
What else can it mean besides what it clearly says?

It says that they "sold their possessions and goods". What do you think that means?

Jesus told the twelve to "sell that ye have". What do you think that means?

It's so obvious that even a child can understand it.

Acts 2:44 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

 

[Right Divider]

Do you think that Peter owned a lot of possessions when he said this?

Matt 19:27 (AKJV/PCE)
(19:27) ¶ Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

 

[Gary K]

Pursue justice.

Excellent. However I don't think it applies to politics. Justice as in right and wrong as applied to individuals, yes/ But when ever church and state have combined throughout history persecution of those who disagreed with the state has begun. During the Reformation people were burnt at the stake for disagreeing with the state's beliefs. And pagan Rome slaughtered millions of Christians over a period of hundreds of years.

 

[Gary K]

That is irrelevant.

Because there was a dispensational change!

That has been my point all along.

They DID!

Acts 2:44-45 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (2:45) And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need.


Again, Acts 5 has nothing to with the the body of Christ and the present dispensation.

Why would I remember something I don't believe?

 

[Gary K]

Do you think that Peter owned a lot of possessions when he said this?

Matt 19:27 (AKJV/PCE)
(19:27) ¶ Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

I find it odd that you claim a dispensational change and use it to say the Acts 5 story doesn't apply to you, but cite Peter talking to Jesus as relevant and quote Acts 2 as relevant while condemning the use of Acts 5. That is one confused belief system.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I find it odd that you claim a dispensational change

... in Acts 9...

and use it to say the Acts 5 story

... which comes before Acts 9...

doesn't apply to you,

... because Ananias and Saphira were under the previous dispensation, where the house rule was to "sell all that you have"...

but cite Peter talking to Jesus as relevant and quote Acts 2 as relevant

... to our point that we are under a different dispensation than they were...

while condemning the use of Acts 5.

No one is condemning the use of Scripture.

What we condemn is the MISuse of Scripture to try to make it say something that it doesn't say.

Like that there are no separate dispensations, or that the rules are the same for Israel and the Body of Christ.

That is one confused belief system.

No, the only thing that's confused here is you, as you try to misrepresent our position.

 

[Right Divider]

I find it odd that you claim a dispensational change and use it to say the Acts 5 story doesn't apply to you, but cite Peter talking to Jesus as relevant and quote Acts 2 as relevant while condemning the use of Acts 5. That is one confused belief system.

The confusion is 100% on Gary K's side. My comments have been clear, coherent and logical. You on the other hand, not at all.

Acts 5 does not apply to anyone in the present day. Do you see anyone being struck dead for lying about the sale of a possession? In Acts 5 they healed everyone that came to them. Do you see that happening today?

Peter was saying that he and the eleven had FORSAKEN ALL... i.e., they had sold all of their possessions, just like those in Acts 2.

I pray that your blindness will come to an end soon.

 

[Idolater]

Excellent. However I don't think it applies to politics. Justice as in right and wrong as applied to individuals, yes/ But when ever church and state have combined throughout history persecution of those who disagreed with the state has begun. During the Reformation people were burnt at the stake for disagreeing with the state's beliefs. And pagan Rome slaughtered millions of Christians over a period of hundreds of years.

Misunderstanding. You've got the wrong idea. Justice is polysemous (from poly many, sem is the same stem as in 'semiotics' the study of meaning, poly-meaning, many-meanings), it means many different things to many different people at many different times and in many different circumstances. But I still say it's the right word to use.

Pursuing justice as you say, can easily be interpreted to mean c. "cleaning up your act." (All well and good.) But justice can also mean what Thomas Aquinas thought it meant, when he was defining the ancient Latin stem /word JUS. According to John Finnis St. Aquinas believed JUS is universal, and, exists in the form of an individual ([and] indivisible) distribution or endowment made to each of us. iow, Thomas Aquinas believed in rights, human rights; absolute (inalienable or "unalienable") human rights.

So rights are, all together, as a zone of ideas, a Christian ideology. Pursuing justice, or JUS, is pursuing the security of all our rights. And one thing to do is to enumerate rights, another is to implement or instantiate a government which secures them, and then there's also abiding by conventions like the rule of law. All of these pursue justice, in the JUS sense of the word.

iow in pursuing the security of our rights, as a political ideology, we are both fulfilling our duty to God (to pursue JUStice), and nullifying the separation between Church and state, there is no difference, just so long as we all believe in rights (JUS). You don't have to believe they come from God, you can believe they come from Evolution or DNA or the Big Bang or whatever, but we all have to be on the same page (which means a super-majority, in democratic terms; it doesn't mean every last person) when it comes to securing our rights.

And I'm only saying (I'm not even arguing the point, I'm just offering an opinion) that the United States of America is fulfilling God's duty in our mere continued existence. The security of our rights must include criminal justice, but it's the character of the whole polity which concerns us, the super-majority, most. Our rights are in this way synonymous with our liberties. We are free to exercise our rights, however we individually determine is best.

 

[Gary K]

The confusion is 100% on Gary K's side. My comments have been clear, coherent and logical. You on the other hand, not at all.

Acts 5 does not apply to anyone in the present day. Do you see anyone being struck dead for lying about the sale of a possession? In Acts 5 they healed everyone that came to them. Do you see that happening today?

Peter was saying that he and the eleven had FORSAKEN ALL... i.e., they had sold all of their possessions, just like those in Acts 2.

I pray that your blindness will come to an end soon.

Ir's you that is misunderstanding scripture.

27 And Jesus passing on from there, two blind ones followed Him, crying and saying, Have pity on us, Son of David. 28 And coming into the house, the blind ones came near to Him. And Jesus said to them, Do you believe that I am able to do this? And they said to Him, Yes, Lord. 29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, According to your faith let it be to you. 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus strictly ordered them, saying, See, let no one know.

How can you see miracles when you don't believe they exist? It is our lack of faith in the healing power of God that causes no physical miracles to be seen, but miracles happen every day. Someone repents of their unbelief and becomes a Christian. That is a supernatural event by definition and yet you don't believe in miracles.

 

[Right Divider]

Ir's you that is misunderstanding scripture.

Incorrect.

27 And Jesus passing on from there, two blind ones followed Him, crying and saying, Have pity on us, Son of David. 28 And coming into the house, the blind ones came near to Him. And Jesus said to them, Do you believe that I am able to do this? And they said to Him, Yes, Lord. 29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, According to your faith let it be to you. 30 And their eyes were opened. And Jesus strictly ordered them, saying, See, let no one know.

Please make a POINT when you quote the scripture.

How can you see miracles when you don't believe they exist?

You are LYING again GK. Why do you LIE?

It is our lack of faith in the healing power of God that causes no physical miracles to be seen, but miracles happen every day.

Easy for you to say. But that is not the truth.

Someone repents of their unbelief and becomes a Christian. That is a supernatural event by definition and yet you don't believe in miracles.

Stop lying GK.

I asked if you see EVERYONE BEING HEALED TODAY!

I did NOT say that miracles cannot or do not happen. But they are NOT abundant, as they were then. Something has changed and you are too blind to see that.

Even Paul, who performed many miracles (including "special miracles" [Acts 19:11]), was not doing so at the end of his ministry when he was leaving his friend sick.

2Tim 4:20 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:20) Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.

And recommending wine as medicine.

1Tim 5:23 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:23) Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

Was Timothy too "faithless"?

 

[Gary K]

... in Acts 9...



... which comes before Acts 9...



... because Ananias and Saphira were under the previous dispensation, where the house rule was to "sell all that you have"...



... to our point that we are under a different dispensation than they were...



No one is condemning the use of Scripture.

What we condemn is the MISuse of Scripture to try to make it say something that it doesn't say.

Like that there are no separate dispensations, or that the rules are the same for Israel and the Body of Christ.



No, the only thing that's confused here is you, as you try to misrepresent our position.

No. I may mistaken but I'm no liar.

 

[Gary K]

Incorrect.

Please make a POINT when you quote the scripture.

You are LYING again GK. Why do you LIE?

Easy for you to say. But that is not the truth.

Stop lying GK.

I asked if you see EVERYONE BEING HEALED TODAY!

I did NOT say that miracles cannot or do not happen. But they are NOT abundant, as they were then. Something has changed and you are too blind to see that.

Even Paul, who performed many miracles (including "special miracles" [Acts 19:11]), was not doing so at the end of his ministry when he was leaving his friend sick.

2Tim 4:20 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:20) Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.

And recommending wine as medicine.

1Tim 5:23 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:23) Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.

Was Timothy too "faithless"?

Is everyone healed today? Of course not. It takes faith and very few people have that kind of faith. So because Paul nor his friend saw no need for a miracle it means they were no longer happening.

I find it ironic that you're upset with me saying dispensationalists don't believe in miracles and here you are saying Paul wasn't working miracles towards the end of his life.

The only thing that has changed is the number of people who have that kind of faith for God uses us, we don't use God.

Look around you is our world today conducive to faith?

Paul said the following in 1 Thessalonians 2: 7 .

7 For the mystery of lawlessness already is working, only he is holding back now, until it comes out of the midst. 8 and then shall be revealed the Lawless One, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the manifestation of his presence,

So faith was already declining in Paul's day therefore the frequency of miracles was also declining.

 

[Right Divider]

Is everyone healed today? Of course not. It takes faith and very few people have that kind of faith.

Such an easy and evidence free thing to claim. You sound just like the faith healers. They claim to have the power to heal everyone. But if someone is not healed.... you guessed it.... they didn't have enough faith! No evidence required. Just a vacuous claim.

So because Paul nor his friend saw no need for a miracle it means they were no longer happening.

So again, GK is a mind reader... hypocrite.

I find it ironic that you're upset with me saying dispensationalists don't believe in miracles and here you are saying Paul wasn't working miracles towards the end of his life.

It's simply what the Bible says. I realize that the Bible is just putty in your magic hands.

The only thing that has changed is the number of people who have that kind of faith for God uses us, we don't use God.

Again, a vacuous claim with no evidence whatsoever.

Look around you is our world today conducive to faith?

There is certainly enough faith for some miracles. But they are few and far between. You seem not to know when and why God uses miracles.

Paul said the following in 1 Thessalonians 2: 7 .

7 For the mystery of lawlessness already is working, only he is holding back now, until it comes out of the midst. 8 and then shall be revealed the Lawless One, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the manifestation of his presence,

Indeed, Paul did say that. It has very little to do with what we are talking about, but it's in the Bible.

So faith was already declining in Paul's day therefore the frequency of miracles was also declining.

Keep on believing your own story...

 

[Gary K]

Such an easy and evidence free thing to claim. You sound just like the faith healers. They claim to have the power to heal everyone. But if someone is not healed.... you guessed it.... they didn't have enough faith! No evidence required. Just a vacuous claim.

So again, GK is a mind reader... hypocrite.

It's simply what the Bible says. I realize that the Bible is just putty in your magic hands.

Again, a vacuous claim with no evidence whatsoever.

There is certainly enough faith for some miracles. But they are few and far between. You seem not to know when and why God uses miracles.

Indeed, Paul did say that. It has very little to do with what we are talking about, but it's in the Bible.

Keep on believing your own story...

So, in your mind there is no link between faith, sin, and miracles in spite of Jesus' question to the two blind men?

 

[Right Divider]

So, in your mind there is no link between faith, sin, and miracles in spite of Jesus' question to the two blind men?

Since you ignore almost everything that I write, welcome to my ignore list.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How can you see miracles when you don't believe they exist?

What gave you the idea that we don't believe miracles exist?

It is our lack of faith in the healing power of God that causes no physical miracles to be seen,

OR, they just don't happen today, and what you consider miracles aren't actually miracles, but are the result of your confirmation bias...

but miracles happen every day.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Someone repents of their unbelief and becomes a Christian. That is a supernatural event by definition

Uh, no, it's not a "supernatural event by definition."

Supernatural means "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

A man exercising his will is completely natural, even and especially if it's to change his mind on a matter.

and yet you don't believe in miracles.

What gave you that idea?

No. I may mistaken but I'm no liar.

Who called you a liar?

Bearing false witness is a sin, Gary.

Is everyone healed today? Of course not. It takes faith and very few people have that kind of faith.

Some people do have that kind of faith, and they are never healed, and sometimes even die.

Is their faith in vain?

Or maybe your position is wrong, and faith has very little to do with being healed?

So because Paul nor his friend saw no need for a miracle it means they were no longer happening.

The problem you face is that, Biblically, the number of miracles recorded in scripture drops off significantly after Paul is converted on the road to Damascus.

I find it ironic that you're upset with me saying dispensationalists don't believe in miracles and here you are saying Paul wasn't working miracles towards the end of his life.

We're upset with you saying that because it's FALSE! It's bearing false witness, which is a sin!

How can we deny miracles if we say that Paul wasn't working miracles towards the end of his life? That presupposes that we DO believe in miracles.

If you think Paul was working miracles towards the end of his life, please demonstrate those miracles from Scripture!

The only thing that has changed is the number of people who have that kind of faith for God uses us, we don't use God.

As RD said, another vacuous claim that is completely unverifiable.

Look around you is our world today conducive to faith?

Irrelevant.

Paul said the following in 1 Thessalonians 2: 7 .

7 For the mystery of lawlessness already is working, only he is holding back now, until it comes out of the midst. 8 and then shall be revealed the Lawless One, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the manifestation of his presence,

So faith was already declining in Paul's day therefore the frequency of miracles was also declining.

Confirmation bias.

Was Paul's faith waning?

How many miracles did HE do?

How many miracles did he ask God for, but God refused to do them?

Have you ever counted the number of miracles per chapter of the New Testament, plotted it out on a graph?

So, in your mind there is no link between faith, sin, and miracles in spite of Jesus' question to the two blind men?

When did miracles being done ever rely on the amount of faith one had whom the miracles were being shown to have to do with it?

In other words, why do you think that the ones being shown the miracles had to have faith in order for there to be a miracle?

 

[Gary K]

What gave you the idea that we don't believe miracles exist?



OR, they just don't happen today, and what you consider miracles aren't actually miracles, but are the result of your confirmation bias...



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Uh, no, it's not a "supernatural event by definition."

Supernatural means "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

A man exercising his will is completely natural, even and especially if it's to change his mind on a matter.



What gave you that idea?



Who called you a liar?

Bearing false witness is a sin, Gary.



Some people do have that kind of faith, and they are never healed, and sometimes even die.

Is their faith in vain?

Or maybe your position is wrong, and faith has very little to do with being healed?



The problem you face is that, Biblically, the number of miracles recorded in scripture drops off significantly after Paul is converted on the road to Damascus.



We're upset with you saying that because it's FALSE! It's bearing false witness, which is a sin!

How can we deny miracles if we say that Paul wasn't working miracles towards the end of his life? That presupposes that we DO believe in miracles.

If you think Paul was working miracles towards the end of his life, please demonstrate those miracles from Scripture!



As RD said, another vacuous claim that is completely unverifiable.



Irrelevant.



Confirmation bias.

Was Paul's faith waning?

How many miracles did HE do?

How many miracles did he ask God for, but God refused to do them?

Have you ever counted the number of miracles per chapter of the New Testament, plotted it out on a graph?



When did miracles being done ever rely on the amount of faith one had whom the miracles were being shown to have to do with it?

In other words, why do you think that the ones being shown the miracles had to have faith in order for there to be a miracle?

I'm not going to respond to much here as I don't see the point of endless arguing with you,

Who called me a liar? RD did when he said I'm misrepresenting the dispensationalist perspective. If I am, I'm only doing so honestly, it's not intentional. I'm not interested in discussing it any further because of the rudeness of it's defenders here, which means you and RD. I was mocked when I came back here and said God had been working miracles in my life by you, RD, and Clete. So when I say you guys don't believe in miracles I have it on good authority. Your own statements.

I've told you guys before that you can't reach people with what you consider to be evangelism as it turns people off. Well, you've completely turned me off and closed my ears completely until you learn how to treat people like Jesus does. He didn't draw crowds of multiple thousands of people by indiscriminately insulting people and until you learn that lesson this forum will not grow, It's down to fewer than a dozen regular posters as you guys have driven off everyone else with your rudeness your accusations of lying and your seeming hatred of anyone who disagrees with you.

This post will infuriate you but someone needs to tell you how unChristlike you really are as until you realize how rude and unlikable you are you cannot witness for God, only against Him.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm not going to respond to much here as I don't see the point of endless arguing with you,

Who called me a liar? RD did when he said I'm misrepresenting the dispensationalist perspective. If I am, I'm only doing so honestly, it's not intentional.

Now that you've been corrected, you should stop misrepresenting our position.

I'm not interested in discussing it any further because of the rudeness of it's defenders here, which means you and RD.

You're too nice.

And no, that's not a compliment, coward.

You're just too scared of being proven wrong.

I was mocked

Boo hoo.

:mock:

when I came back here and said God had been working miracles in my life by you, RD, and Clete.

Because those weren't miracles. What you call "miracles" are not miracles at all, but simply naturally occurring events.

So when I say you guys don't believe in miracles I have it on good authority. Your own statements.

Where have we stated that we do not believe in miracles?

Quote, please.

Your argument seems to be, "You guys believe that God doesn't do miracles today, therefore you must believe that God never does or did any miracles." Is that correct, or am I completely off base?

Because 1) that's a non-sequitur (it does not logically follow), and 2) as I stated above, your definition of miracles is erroneous.

There is one thread that runs consistently throughout the Bible when it comes to miracles.

Miracles (events that supersede natural or spiritual law) foster unbelief, not belief.

Miracles and Unbelief (i.e., they tend to PRODUCE unbelief) | KGOV.com

kgov.com

I've told you guys before that you can't reach people with what you consider to be evangelism as it turns people off.

"All cars are red" only takes one blue car to disprove.

The shows at https://kgov.com/terrys-call disprove the notion that you can't reach people by being not nice.

Well, you've completely turned me off and closed my ears completely

No, we didn't do that. You did.

Be careful that God doesn't strengthen you in your resolve to keep your ears closed.

until you learn how to treat people like Jesus does.

You would be offended by how Jesus treated others. He wasn't as nice as you make Him out to be.

Nicer than God | KGOV.com

kgov.com

He didn't draw crowds of multiple thousands of people by indiscriminately insulting people

Most of the people who came to listen to Him came for the entertainment of His performing of miracles, not because of what He was saying.

and until you learn that lesson

What lesson? That truth is offensive to those who hate the truth?

We're well aware.

this forum will not grow, It's down to fewer than a dozen regular posters

Sharing truth is more important that membership numbers.

as you guys have driven off everyone else with your rudeness your accusations of lying

Or, people leave because they find the truth offensive, and can't be bothered with facing reality

and your seeming hatred of anyone who disagrees with you.

You think we hate the people we disagree with?

Our rebuke is done in love. It might be offensive, but you can't tell the person driving past you that they're about to drive off a cliff by giving them flowers.

This post will infuriate you

False.

but someone needs to tell you how unChristlike you really are

Says the one trying to be nicer than God (which is a sin, by the way).

as until you realize how rude and unlikable you are you cannot witness for God, only against Him.

Once again: Truth is offensive to those who hate the truth.

I'm not here to be liked. I'm here to find out and share the truth.