Sunday, March 5, 2017

Why you don't feel the spirit- be filled..

Edward, a member of Ipswich England Stake, describes the feeling he had that night when the Holy Ghost testified of the truthfulness of the gospel, he describes it as a “warm shiver and a tingle which went through my body.” He has learned to recognize that feeling. He says he feels the Spirit often now that his friends are going on missions and as they have opportunities to bear their testimonies at camp, at youth conferences, or in church.

While certain ministries of the Holy Spirit may involve a feeling, such as conviction of sin, comfort, and empowerment, Scripture does not instruct us to base our relationship with the Holy Spirit on how or what we feel. Every born-again believer has the indwelling Holy Spirit. Jesus told us that when the Comforter has come He will be with us and in us. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you” (John 14:16-17). In other words, Jesus is sending one like Himself to be with us and in us.

We know the Holy Spirit is with us because God's Word tells us that it is so. Every born-again believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but not every believer is controlled by the Holy Spirit, and there is a distinct difference. When we step out in our flesh, we are not under the control of the Holy Spirit even though we are still indwelt by Him. The apostle Paul comments on this truth, and he uses an illustration that helps us to understand. “Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18). Many people read this verse and interpret it to mean that the apostle Paul is speaking against wine. However, the context of this passage is the walk and the warfare of the Spirit-filled believer. Therefore, there is something more here than just a warning about drinking too much wine.

When people are drunk with too much wine, they exhibit certain characteristics: they become clumsy, their speech is slurred, and their judgment is impaired. The apostle Paul sets up a comparison here. Just as there are certain characteristics that identify someone who is controlled by too much wine, there should also be certain characteristics that identify someone who is controlled by the Holy Spirit. We read in Galatians 5:22-24 about the “fruit” of the Spirit. This is the Holy Spirit’s fruit, and it is exhibited by the born-again believer who is under His control.

The verb tense in Ephesians 5:18 indicates a continual process of “being filled” by the Holy Spirit. Since it is an exhortation, it follows that it is also possible to not be filled or controlled by the Spirit. The rest of Ephesians 5 gives us the characteristics of a Spirit-filled believer. “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:19-21).

We are not filled with the Spirit because we feel we are, but because this is the privilege and possession of the Christian

Becoming All Things to All People..Can I please myself so long as my conscience is clear?

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Becoming All Things to All People

For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the Law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow partaker of it. (9:19–23)

The primary purpose of Paul’s not taking full advantage of his Christian liberty was that [he] might win the more. He deeply believed that “he who is wise wins souls” (Prov. 11:30) and was willing to do anything and to sacrifice anything to win people to Jesus Christ. As far as his rights were concerned he was free from all men, but because of his love for all men he would gladly limit those rights for their sakes. He had, figuratively, become a slave to all. He would modify his habits, his preferences, his entire life–style if any of those things caused someone to stumble, to be offended, or to be hindered from faith in the Lord.

Again we are reminded that in the gray areas of living, those that involve practices about which the Bible does not speak, Paul, as all believers, was free to do as his conscience allowed. But love would not let him do anything that the consciences of weaker believers would not allow. Love would not even allow him to do things that would be offensive to unbelievers to whom he witnessed. He would put every questionable thing in his life under the control of love.

Under the Mosaic law every Hebrew who was enslaved by another Hebrew had to be offered his freedom after six years. But if he loved his master and preferred to remain in that household, he could become a permanent slave, and his ear was pierced as a sign of his voluntary enslavement (Ex. 21:2–6).

In a figurative way Paul made himself such a slave to other men. I have made myself a slave is only two words in Greek (edoulosa, “I enslave,” andemauton, “myself”). That word for enslavement is very strong. It is used to describe Israel’s 400–year experience in Egypt (Acts 7:6), the marriage bond (1 Cor. 7:15), addiction to wine (Titus 2:3), and the Christian’s new relationship to righteousness (Rom. 6:18). It was not a small or easy thing that Paul enslaved himself to all. But his Lord had taught that “whoever wishes to be first … shall be slave of all” (Mark 10:44).

Paul’s willing adjustment of his living in order to identify with those to whom he witnessed was part of what today we call preevangelism. What he did in this regard was not a part of the gospel; it had nothing to do with the gospel. But it helped many unbelievers to listen to the gospel and be more open to receive it.

To illustrate his voluntary slavery Paul mentions three ways in which he had adapted, and would continue to adapt, his living in order to help others be more receptive to Christ. Each of these illustrations, like the statement of the principle itself (v. 19), ends with a purpose clause (“that I might/may …”) indicating his great desire to win people to Christ.

To the Jews I became as a Jew. First, within scriptural limits he would be as Jewish as necessary when working with Jews. In Christ he was no longer bound to the ceremonies, rituals, and traditions of Judaism. Following or not following any of those things had no affect on his spiritual life. But if following them would open a door for his witnessing to Jews, he would gladly accommodate. What had once been legal restraints now had become love restraints. His motive was clearly to win Jews to salvation in Jesus Christ.

Speaking of his fellow Jews, Paul said, “My heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation” (Rom. 10:1). Even if preaching to the Gentiles caused some Jews to accept Christ out of jealousy, that would be good (11:14). Earlier in that same letter he said, “For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (9:3).

If he was willing to do that for the sake of his fellow Jews, he could surely abide by their ceremonial regulations, observe a special day, or refrain from eating certain foods—if doing those things would help win those who are under the Law. When Paul wanted to take Timothy with him in his ministry he had him circumcised, “because of the Jews who were in those parts” where he intended to go (Acts 16:3). Timothy’s circumcision was of no benefit to him and certainly not to Paul. But it could be of great benefit to their ministry among Jews and was a small price for the prospect of winning some of them to the Lord.

At the advice of James and other leaders of the Jerusalem church, Paul willingly paid for and participated in a Jewish purification ceremony with four other Jewish Christians. He took part in the ritual in order to prove to the Jewish critics of Christianity that he was not teaching Jews to completely abandon Moses and the Old Testament law (Acts 21:20–26). The special Jewish vow Paul took in Cenchrea (Acts 18:18) may have been for the sake of some Jews.

Because Jews were still under the Law, Paul would himself act as under the Lawwhen he worked among them. He did not believe, teach, or give the least suggestion that following the law was of any spiritual benefit. It could not gain or keep salvation, but it was a way of opening doors to work among the Jews.

To those who are without law, as without law. Second, Paul was willing to live like a Gentile when he worked among Gentiles.

To keep from being misunderstood, he makes it clear that he is not talking about ignoring or violating God’s moral law. The Ten Commandments and all of God’s other moral laws have, if anything, been strengthened under the New Covenant. For example, not only is it sin to commit murder but also to be inordinately angry with your brother or to call him a fool. Not only is adultery sinful, but so is lust (Matt. 5:21–30). Love does not abrogate God’s moral law but fulfills it (Rom. 13:8, 10; cf. Matt. 5:17). None of us in Christ is without [outside]the law of God, but rather are under the law of Christ. Every believer is under complete legal obligation to Jesus Christ—even though love, rather than the extemalities of the law, is to be the guiding force.

In other than moral matters, however, Paul identified as closely as possible with Gentile customs. He ate what they ate, went where they went, and dressed as they dressed. The purpose again was to win the Gentiles to Christ.

To the weak I became weak. Third, Paul was willing to identify with those, whether Jew or Gentile, who did not have the power of understanding to grasp the gospel. When among those who were weak he acted weak. He stooped to the level of their weakness of comprehension. To those who needed simple or repeated presentations, that is what he gave them. No doubt he demonstrated that kind of consideration in the case of the Corinthians themselves (cf. 2:1–5). His purpose was to win them to salvation.

In summary, Paul became all things to all men, that he might by all means save some. He did not compromise the gospel. He would not change the least truth in the least way in order to satisfy anyone. But he would condescend in any way for anyone if that would in any way help bring him to Christ. He would never set aside a truth of the gospel, but he would gladly restrict his liberty in the gospel. He would not offend Jew, Gentile, or those weak in understanding.

If a person is offended by God’s Word, that is his problem. If he is offended by biblical doctrine, standards, or church discipline, that is his problem. That person is offended by God. But if he is offended by our unnecessary behavior or practices—no matter how good and acceptable those may be in themselves—his problem becomes our problem. It is not a problem of law but a problem of love, and love always demands more than the law. “Whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two” (Matt. 5:39–41).

Paul’s life centered in living out the gospel and in preaching and teaching the gospel. Nothing else was of any concern to him. I do all things for the sake of the gospel. His life was the gospel. He therefore set aside anything that would hinder its power and effectiveness.

Fellow partaker (sunkoinonos) refers to joint participation, joint sharing. The idea here is that Paul wanted everyone else to be a fellow partaker with him.

Friday, March 3, 2017

The blood of Jesus.....Why plead his blood..?

What is the blood of Jesus meant to do?

The only valid use to which you put the blood of Jesus to is for the remission or cleansing from sins as seen in the outlined scriptures. It does not in any way meant to be used as a tool to combat the enemy which has already been conquered by the privilege of the new birth.

1 John 1:7 - But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Matthew 26:28 - For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Hebrews 9:22 - And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Hebrews 9:12 - Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us].

Revelation 12:11 - And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

It is not used for fighting at all, even under the old convenant it was not made for pleading and anyone found with the blood of sprinkling was to be stoned to death.

“Pleading the blood of Jesus” in prayer is a teaching common in Pentecostal andCharismatic circles. When people speak of “pleading the blood of Jesus in prayer,” they are referring to the practice of claiming the power of Christ over any and every problem by using the phrase “I plead the blood of Jesus over _______.” People fill in the blank with whatever they want: “I plead the blood of Jesus over my family/job/thoughts/illness.”

“Pleading the blood of Jesus” has no clear basis in Scripture. No one in the Bible ever “pleads the blood” of Christ. Those who “plead the blood” often do so as if there were something magical in those words or as if by using them their prayer is somehow more powerful. This teaching is born from a misguided view of prayer that prayer is a way of manipulating God to get what we want rather than praying for His will to be done. The whole Word of Faith movement, which teaches pleading the blood, is founded on the false teaching that faith is a force and that, if we pray with enough faith, God guarantees us health, wealth, and happiness.

Those who teach the value of pleading the blood of Jesus usually point to the Passover as support of their practice. (It is quite common for Pentecostalism to base its doctrines on Old Testament examples.) Just as the blood of the Paschal lamb protected the Israelites from the angel of death and led to their deliverance from slavery, so the blood of Jesus can protect and deliver Christians today, if they apply, or “plead,” it.

Those who plead the blood of Jesus often do so in the context of seeking victory over demons. Pleading the blood of Jesus is a way of taking up the authority of Christ over the spirit world and announcing to the forces of darkness that they are powerless. Some base this aspect of pleading the blood on Revelation 12:11, “They triumphed over [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony.”

The Scriptures you are asking about are Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; 3:5, 12, 21; and 21:7. Many preachers, radio and television evangelists, and Christian writers utterly misunderstand and misapply these verses to support a false doctrine of works salvation or at least lessen the full scope of Christ's atonement.

Overcoming

Look at John 16:33 again: "I have told you these things, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have oppression; but cheer up! I have overcome the world." Pack's statement above, "Just as He qualified to replace Satan, so must we!" was in response to this Scripture. Did Jesus tell us we could have peace in Him and cheer up because He has overcome the world for us, or are His words only an empty pep talk? Did Jesus overcome the world only for Himself, and now we must accomplish this feat, too? Can we really expect to do something simply because Jesus has done it? I don't know about you, but I don't think I can fast forty days and forty nights. And I know that I can't die on a cross bearing other people's sins. So, why should I expect to overcome the world? Jesus had power that I as a weak human don't have.

Is the dualism theory Christianity-focused?

Dualism and monism are the two central schools of thought on the mind–body problem, although nuanced views have arisen that don't fit one or the other category neatly. Dualism is seen even in the Eastern tradition, in the Sankhya andYoga schools of Hindu philosophy, and Plato, but its entry into Western philosophy was thanks to René Descartes in the 17th century. Substance dualists like Descartes argue that the mind is an independently existing substance, whereas property dualists maintain that the mind is a group of independent properties that emerge from and cannot be reduced to the brain, but that it is not a distinct substance.

Monism is the position that mind and body are not ontologically distinct kinds of entities (independent substances). This view was first advocated inWestern philosophy by Parmenides in the 5th century BC and was later espoused by the 17th century rationalist Baruch Spinoza. Physicalists argue that only entities postulated by physical theory exist, and that mental processes will eventually be explained in terms of these entities as physical theory continues to evolve. Physicalists maintain various positions on the prospects of reducing mental properties to physical properties (many of whom adopt compatible forms of property dualism), and the ontological status of such mental properties remains unclear.

Philosophical naturalists deny the existence and influence of nonmaterial (or supernatural) entities, and many scientists are as committed to physicalism and physical evolutionary processes as they are opposed to dualism. The theory of evolution is a wholly physical enterprise; material processes engage matter using the laws of physics and chemistry, guided and shaped by physical, environmental influences. If materialistic, evolutionary processes produce humans such as ourselves, they must also produce human minds. If human minds are the result of purely physical processes of evolution, they must also be physical entities.

This objection may sound reasonable, but it begs the question. In the end, the explanation we embrace must account for the five distinct evidences differentiating minds from brains. We cannot begin this investigation committed to a presupposition of philosophical naturalism or physicalism when this is the very thing we are trying to investigate in the first place. (We are investigating the question: Is there a nonphysical entity called the mind?) There appear to be five distinct characteristics of mind distinguishing it from the brain. Whatever explanation we finally embrace, it cannot be chosen (in advance) based purely on our prior philosophical commitments. Like detectives entering a murder scene (or jurors assessing the case in a courtroom), we cannot begin our investigation with a preconceived idea about who killed the victim. We must, instead, allow the evidence to guide our decision.
Brain and mind are not the same. Your brain is part of the visible, tangible world of the body. Your mind is part of the invisible, transcendent world of thought, feeling, attitude, belief and imagination. The brain is the physical organ most associated with mind and consciousness, but the mind is not confined to the brain. The intelligence of your mind permeates every cell of your body, not just brain cells. Your mind has tremendous power over all bodily systems.

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Why would God punish a good unbeliever....#solfard

The late Bertrand Russell, a renowned British agnostic, wrote a small publication titled, Why I Am Not A Christian. One of the reasons he cited for his unbelief was that Jesus Christ taught that there is an eternal hell for the wicked.

Russell could not harmonize Christ’s doctrine about hell with the biblical position of a just and benevolent God; hence, he rejected the teaching of Jesus and inclined toward the belief that there is no God. Russell, who lived a life of reckless abandon, echoed the sentiments of Cain: “My punishment is greater than I can bear.” On that basis, he became a determined opponent of true religion.

The problem of reconciling eternal retribution with the goodness of God also has had a significant impact on the religious world. Many religions, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and the World Wide Church of God (Armstrongism), have rejected the doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked. Even the churches of Christ have had their advocates of this erroneous viewpoint

If it is true that the Scriptures teach that God has appointed eternal punishment for impenitently evil people, and if it likewise is correct that the Bible affirms the justice and goodness of Jehovah, then it must follow that eternal punishment is not inconsistent with the nature of God. It is at odds only with some men’s perception of goodness and justice.

Second, no one (skeptic or otherwise) is ready to concede that evildoers are unworthy ofany type of punishment. It is recognized that no society could survive in such an atmosphere. Should the rapist, the robber, and the murderer be told: “Admittedly, you have done wrong, but we (society) will not punish you for your crimes. This would be unjust”? Is there anyone who argues that there should be no consequences resulting from criminal conduct? Surely not! It is conceded, therefore, that punishment is not inconsistent with true justice.

Third, let us take our reasoning a step further. Is it the case that genuine justice can be served even when an evil man’s punishment is extended beyond the time involved in the commission of his crime? Do we, for example, in our criminal justice system, ask the murderer, “Sir, how long did it take you to kill your wife?”—then assign his incarceration accordingly? Would justice be maintained by such an approach?

there is a God, He is responsible for creating everything in the Universe. This means that God created matter from non-matter and life from non-life. If this is true, God has incredible, infinite, and unspeakable power. With muscle like that, God surely has the power to eliminate imperfection. This is why, as Christians, we believe that God is perfect; He has the ability to eliminate imperfection. The Christian God is not a “good God” after all. He is a “perfect God”. His standard is not “goodness”, it is “perfection”. The real question that each of us has to ask ourselves is not “Are we good?”, but “Are we perfect?” Can any of us answer in the affirmative here? Even if we reject the teaching of the Bible, but accept the possibility that there may be an all-powerful God, we must acknowledge that His standard will be perfection and that we will ultimately fall short of this standard.

God doesn’t send good people to Hell. In order to consider ourselves “good”, we typically have to overlook much of what we think about and a lot of what we have done. Conversely, God doesn’t send good people to Heaven either. “Good” is simply not “good enough” in light of Heaven’s perfection. A loving God rescues creatures who are “practically” imperfect by offering us the free gift of forgiveness (Romans 6:23). When we accept this offer, we become “positionally” perfect (Hebrews 10:14) by clothing ourselves in the perfection of Jesus.

Subscribers please