Hard to title this post...

[TreeStamp1]

Hello everyone

I am a believer in the Judeo-Christian narrative. I am looking for sources of Christian "material/churches/groups/people" that would help me strengthen my faith, so to speak, the problem is I am very picky.

I am sort-of tired of "chewing the meat and spitting out the bones", and I would like to find a preacher/pastor/church/books/materials that I believe actually hold up accurately theology, following Jesus, loving others, humility, kindness, non-judgementalism, non-religiosity, authenticity, genuineness, biblical, supporting and prayerful for each other, etc. I know so many do seek this type of thing. I've to many good churches, which I am thankful for.

I was an atheist who believed evolution and had a NDE/OBE, became a theist and then researched science and religion, now believing we both did not come from evolution, and that Jesus is who he said he is, and rose from dead.

I absolutely am repulsed by "complete and exhaustive foreknowledge", and find some strain of "open theism" that supports a literal "free will" that can actually "surprise God" as refreshing and biblical.

I've done a lot of research in the past reading certain Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, and books like the Shepherd, Enoch, Wisdom, etc.

I am tired of, and I really don't like going to, or watching online, churches who preach like inauthentic religulous people, or if they preach on topics that reveal their own theological compromise such as "evolution".

I want to respect them from a distance, but at the same time find people who want to be genuine and authentic and "real" believers, I don't know how else to put it, but also take God's word as the early church did, and Jesus. Like.... literally. Or symbolic literalism, regrading things like revelation. But not allegorical, such as what evolutionists would have to conclude.

If religulous works for some people, fine, I am happy for them. I consider them fortunate the have so many good things.

Anyone else have any of the same thoughts, or seeking something similar?

Maybe I am off, I am sorry if I am.

Just to list a couple preachers and authors who I have very much admired in the past: Derek Prince, Neil T Anderson, Nabeel Qureshi, Francis Chan.

Thanks for any responses

 

[Tigger45]

Your journey of exploring different Christian traditions can either be frustrating or valuable to your experience of the journey.

 

[TreeStamp1]

Your journey of exploring different Christian traditions can either be frustrating or valuable to your experience of the journey.

What do you do? How do you see it?

 

[Tigger45]

Each church tradition I’ve been associated with gave me things that caused growth and understanding that I carry to the next chapter in my journey.

 

[TreeStamp1]

Seems to be wise

 

[Tolworth John]

non-judgementalism, non-religiosity,

Those two are a big ask.

May I suggest checking out the churches on the christianityexplored web site a nd see how they stack up against your list.

May I also suggest that you see how there practice matches there preaching.
Do attend churches, judge there welcome, clarity of service, the preaching, its content and talk to the preacher afterwatds.
No church is pefect, but churhes that are biblical, that do care, that do reach out and are welcoming do exist.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hello everyone

I am a believer in the Judeo-Christian narrative. I am looking for sources of Christian "material/churches/groups/people" that would help me strengthen my faith, so to speak, the problem is I am very picky.

I am sort-of tired of "chewing the meat and spitting out the bones", and I would like to find a preacher/pastor/church/books/materials that I believe actually hold up accurately theology, following Jesus, loving others, humility, kindness, non-judgementalism, non-religiosity, authenticity, genuineness, biblical, supporting and prayerful for each other, etc. I know so many do seek this type of thing. I've to many good churches, which I am thankful for.

I was an atheist who believed evolution and had a NDE/OBE, became a theist and then researched science and religion, now believing we both did not come from evolution, and that Jesus is who he said he is, and rose from dead.

I absolutely am repulsed by "complete and exhaustive foreknowledge", and find some strain of "open theism" that supports a literal "free will" that can actually "surprise God" as refreshing and biblical.

I've done a lot of research in the past reading certain Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, and books like the Shepherd, Enoch, Wisdom, etc.

I am tired of, and I really don't like going to, or watching online, churches who preach like inauthentic religulous people, or if they preach on topics that reveal their own theological compromise such as "evolution".

I want to respect them from a distance, but at the same time find people who want to be genuine and authentic and "real" believers, I don't know how else to put it, but also take God's word as the early church did, and Jesus. Like.... literally. Or symbolic literalism, regrading things like revelation. But not allegorical, such as what evolutionists would have to conclude.

If religulous works for some people, fine, I am happy for them. I consider them fortunate the have so many good things.

Anyone else have any of the same thoughts, or seeking something similar?

Maybe I am off, I am sorry if I am.

Just to list a couple preachers and authors who I have very much admired in the past: Derek Prince, Neil T Anderson, Nabeel Qureshi, Francis Chan.

Thanks for any responses

Yep. I share some of the same thoughts. The thing is, there are no "perfect" preachers. So, while there's a whole lot of preachers, theologians, apologists and Christian philosophers I could direct you to, not one of them is going to be able to 'give' you that sense of finality in "all things" pertaining to Jesus that you might like to have. This is just the reality we live in and we have to take it as it is.

As for Derek Prince or Neil T Anderson, I wouldn't be relying on them ... especially not as a main source. It's best to get other Christian points of view.

 

[Hawkins]

If you truly want to believe, you need make good guesses on what God wants, instead of insisting on what you want.
Most answers are ultimately from God. So seek the original writer, then other things are given. Or else, you are blindly searching.

 

[TreeStamp1]

Thanks for the responses.

@2PhiloVoid

I know this would be a common response, "no perfect church". But I did not know how else to phrase my post.

I guess the two difficult things for me to hear in preaching is: theology pertaining to "complete and exhaustive foreknowledge", and the assumptions of evolution and thus reading Genesis and Adam and Eve allegorically. These can be real deal breakers because the foreknowledge thing paints God in a very bad light for me, and I just have had to jettison it, while evolution undercuts the whole gospel and the evidence for it is a big scam job by the academia.

The other difficult thing though pertains to "following Jesus". I can find really heart felt lovers of Jesus preaching humility and loving others and so on.... but then their theology usually is off to the point where I really can't keep watching or going. Yeah you could start to use the word "heresy" =/

@Hawkins

Yeah, you are probably exactly right. In the past though I have been led to believe "Christian's need other Christian's for their sanctification, etc". Yeah, I feel lost in this world. I need Christian support, but I really wish there would be unity in the Church on the truth of things. Not saying I am right about everything theologically, but having listened to a long audiobook Volume 1 about church history, I really wish there was unity on things pertaining to theology and discipleship and non-corruption, good leadership, and so on. I am so demanding ... haha =)

The other thing is, you know the statement: "be the change you want to see in the world"... but it seems like we are always fighting and getting nowhere.

 

[TreeStamp1]

As for Derek Prince or Neil T Anderson, I wouldn't be relying on them ... especially not as a main source. It's best to get other Christian points of view.

Could you list a couple points of contention so I am aware of what you are referring to more specifically?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could you list a couple points of contention so I am aware of what you are referring to more specifically?

It seems to me that asserting that a Christian can be "demon-possessed" is a very fanciful idea which these guys more or less support.

I'd suggest not thinking in this way, particularly.

 

[TreeStamp1]

It seems to me that asserting that a Christian can be "demon-possessed" is a very fanciful idea which these guys more or less support.

I'd suggest not thinking in this way, particularly.

Well: define "Christian" and define "Demon-possessed"

haha =)

No, really though, the greek word is "Daemonizado", "afflicted by or demonized" not really "possessed" unless you consider edge cases

Also define Christian: A believer? What if they are imperfect? To what degree do their beliefs and its positive affect on their life constitute some amount or degree of being "Christian"? How and where do you draw the line?

Both words, "Daemonizado" and "Christian" can be used in "Degrees" or "Scales", "Gradient" or "Spectrum".

From "Possessed" to having "some affliction", some "anger problem, lust problem, self-exaltation problem"

A Christian can be from "Nominal" to "Spirit filled Matyr" going into dangerous places willing to die, and many times dying, for the love of Jesus.

Am I wrong to see it this way?

But again this will come down to "theology" and which "understanding" is correct.

Calvinists will take one position, another group another. One group will take one verse about Paul to say can "Christian's can be afflicted by spirits". Other's will disagree on the plain reading of the texts. =)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well: define "Christian" and define "Demon-possessed"

haha =)

No, really though, the greek word is "Daemonizado", "afflicted by or demonized" not really "possessed" unless you consider edge cases

Also define Christian: A believer? What if they are imperfect? To what degree do their beliefs and its positive affect on their life constitute some amount or degree of being "Christian"? How and where do you draw the line?

Both words, "Daemonizado" and "Christian" can be used in "Degrees" or "Scales", "Gradient" or "Spectrum".

From "Possessed" to having "some affliction", some "anger problem, lust problem, self-exaltation problem"

A Christian can be from "Nominal" to "Spirit filled Matyr" going into dangerous places willing to die, and many times dying, for the love of Jesus.

Am I wrong to see it this way?

Yes, I think that's too loose and general of a description to give in response. All it does is show that you're reaching all over the place for some definite location to land upon. If you continue that way, you'll be reaching until the sun goes down ... figuratively speaking. Don't do that to yourself.

And if you're having personal issue of a serious nature, go to a good Christians psychologist, not a deliverance 'healer/teacher.'

But again this will come down to "theology" and which "understanding" is correct.

Calvinists will take one position, another group another. One group will take one verse about Paul to say can "Christian's can be afflicted by spirits". Other's will disagree on the plain reading of the texts. =)

The problem here, TreeStamp1, is that you're never going to be able to reach some kind of final, comprehensive, closed point of definition for much of anything that Christians like to banter back and forth over.

And I suppose that you're not going to get any definitive denotatons or connotations about any biblical terms, whether Hebrew or Koine, from me being either since I'm an Existentialist Christian and my hermeneutical and exegetical approach to interpreting the bible isn't going to perfectly align with any one of them. I'm more interested in both comparing theologies through time and history and cutting out the excess garbage deductions that people come up with to "defend" their chosen points of view on any one biblical idea (such as demonization).

On a practical scale, I'd simply ask what you've read already in regard to the issue of 'spiritual warefare.' So, what have you read, thus far?

Out of all the books I have, I'd suggest you start with the following sources by which to engage and compare different views, if you haven't already done so. I have a lot more where these come from, but most of my sources deal with derailing the hold of various "Faith Movement" teachings, most of which I don't accept and firmly advise against if a person wants to deal more solidly with the crud of life that we all have to deal with.

​

Neil Anderson and Freedom In Christ Ministries: A General Critique - Christian Research Institute

This is a reprint of the introductory portion of a series of articles that first appeared in the Christian Research Journal, volume 21, number 1 (1998). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal, go to www.equip.org or call 1800 2-JOURNAL. The Problems at a Glance...

www.equip.org

​

Beilby, James K., and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds. Understanding spiritual warfare: Four views. Baker Books, 2012.​

​

Lewis, Clive Staples. The screwtape letters. Zondervan, 2001.​

 

[TreeStamp1]

@2PhiloVoid

Hank is a no go for me, I forget why, its been a while. Plus I've heard critiques Neil Anderson, might have been by Equip, and I totally side with Neil, 9 times out of 10.

There are really too many people and theologies to research. I had to go to the early fathers to get a grip on some perspective of what was more "original", "authentic" Christian life and belief and practice. I don't have the energy to go down rabbit trails of so many people with so many beliefs and so many theologies and so many critiques. Tiresome. Frusterating.

"The problem here, TreeStamp1, is that you're never going to be able to reach some kind of final, comprehensive, closed point of definition for much of anything that Christians like to banter back and forth over."



"I'm more interested in both comparing theologies through time and history and cutting out the excess garbage deductions that people come up with to "defend" their chosen points of view on any one biblical idea (such as demonization)."

I was not convinced at all that these particular doctrines that people have which have been of interest to me are their "chosen points of view" of such a biased nature so as not to be able to see "the truth". I am personally convinced of my own perspective, but I am not completely hedged in against being wrong, just that other views do not make sense of the texts or of God, or of church history or early understanding, such as Irenaeus.

I mean Pre-Trib was not help by the early church, but was thought up a couple hundred years ago, and I heard Brian Brodersen basically say on radio sermon that he was thankful that God revealed this truth so late in Church History.

What? Hidden for 1800 years and no early church belief at all???? I love Calvary Chapel's heart though. Appreciate them. But theology and doctrine is so all over the place and not grounded in early understanding. Protestantism is like a dirty bomb shooting off shards in all directions.

Care to add some more to what you mean by Existentialist Christian? --> Like, don't worry necessarily about difficult details, God is good, Jesus rose from the dead, love God and do good? Only things that are helpful existentially you worry about?

I am not sure what the "Faith Movement" is, but my hunch is that I don't agree with it as well, vaguely remembering.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid

Hank is a no go for me, I forget why, its been a while. Plus I've heard critiques Neil Anderson, might have been by Equip, and I totally side with Neil, 9 times out of 10.

There are really too many people and theologies to research. I had to go to the early fathers to get a grip on some perspective of what was more "original", "authentic" Christian life and belief and practice. I don't have the energy to go down rabbit trails of so many people with so many beliefs and so many theologies and so many critiques. Tiresome. Frusterating.

"The problem here, TreeStamp1, is that you're never going to be able to reach some kind of final, comprehensive, closed point of definition for much of anything that Christians like to banter back and forth over."



"I'm more interested in both comparing theologies through time and history and cutting out the excess garbage deductions that people come up with to "defend" their chosen points of view on any one biblical idea (such as demonization)."

I was not convinced at all that these particular doctrines that people have which have been of interest to me are their "chosen points of view" of such a biased nature so as not to be able to see "the truth". I am personally convinced of my own perspective, but I am not completely hedged in against being wrong, just that other views do not make sense of the texts or of God, or of church history or early understanding, such as Irenaeus.

I mean Pre-Trib was not help by the early church, but was thought up a couple hundred years ago, and I heard Brian Brodersen basically say on radio sermon that he was thankful that God revealed this truth so late in Church History.

What? Hidden for 1800 years and no early church belief at all???? I love Calvary Chapel's heart though. Appreciate them. But theology and doctrine is so all over the place and not grounded in early understanding. Protestantism is like a dirty bomb shooting off shards in all directions.

Care to add some more to what you mean by Existentialist Christian? --> Like, don't worry necessarily about difficult details, God is good, Jesus rose from the dead, love God and do good? Only things that are helpful existentially you worry about?

I am not sure what the "Faith Movement" is, but my hunch is that I don't agree with it as well, vaguely remembering.

Ok. I get where you're coming from. There was a time in my life when I wanted "more of the Lord" in more phenomenal "powerful" way too. On some level, everyone does I think.

The problem now, though, is that not only am I a believer in Jesus, but I'm also a dastardly evolutionist, existentialist, philosopher, and advocate of Christian minimalism, and I tend to be very ecclectic in my own journey through Christian theology. I'm not so specific, but I don't like fakery either. So, although I'm open to fellowshipping with other Trinitarian Christians of all denominations, I also tend to be skeptical of a lot things which a number of our fellow Christians take for granted, and I get slighted by them from time to time over it.

I'm probably not going to be very useful to you, TreeStamp1. If your biases are such as they are and you're presently inflexible in your ruminations and applications of thought, then there's not much I can do to help point to useful sources even though I have quite a bit of coverage in my own education and personal library.

It sounds like you're wanting "strong, evangelical" teaching of a more "3rd wave(-ish)" style of evangelical teaching and .... I don't support that directly, so while I'm open to fellowship with Third Wavers, I'm not going to extol their angle on the faith.

I wish I could be of help, but I don't think any of the 1,000 books I have on the Christian faith or Church History or Theology or even "practical spiritual growth" will be what you're looking for.

But, you might at least read C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters. He'll give you some things to think about.

Be blessed in your journey. I hope you find what you're looking for, brother!

Peace and Merry Christmas!

(P.S. If you want to know more, let me know, but at the moment I'll just assume that you're going to head out to greener Christian pastures.)

 

[TreeStamp1]

You seem to be of the intellectual type.

What is your opinion of the critiques of evolution?

 

[Diamond7]

Hello everyone

I am a believer in the Judeo-Christian narrative. I am looking for sources of Christian "material/churches/groups/people" that would help me strengthen my faith, so to speak, the problem is I am very picky.

I am sort-of tired of "chewing the meat and spitting out the bones", and I would like to find a preacher/pastor/church/books/materials that I believe actually hold up accurately theology, following Jesus, loving others, humility, kindness, non-judgementalism, non-religiosity, authenticity, genuineness, biblical, supporting and prayerful for each other, etc. I know so many do seek this type of thing. I've to many good churches, which I am thankful for.

I was an atheist who believed evolution and had a NDE/OBE, became a theist and then researched science and religion, now believing we both did not come from evolution, and that Jesus is who he said he is, and rose from dead.

I absolutely am repulsed by "complete and exhaustive foreknowledge", and find some strain of "open theism" that supports a literal "free will" that can actually "surprise God" as refreshing and biblical.

I've done a lot of research in the past reading certain Early Church Fathers like Irenaeus, and books like the Shepherd, Enoch, Wisdom, etc.

I am tired of, and I really don't like going to, or watching online, churches who preach like inauthentic religulous people, or if they preach on topics that reveal their own theological compromise such as "evolution".

I want to respect them from a distance, but at the same time find people who want to be genuine and authentic and "real" believers, I don't know how else to put it, but also take God's word as the early church did, and Jesus. Like.... literally. Or symbolic literalism, regrading things like revelation. But not allegorical, such as what evolutionists would have to conclude.

If religulous works for some people, fine, I am happy for them. I consider them fortunate the have so many good things.

Anyone else have any of the same thoughts, or seeking something similar?

Maybe I am off, I am sorry if I am.

Just to list a couple preachers and authors who I have very much admired in the past: Derek Prince, Neil T Anderson, Nabeel Qureshi, Francis Chan.

Thanks for any responses

I think we need to look at the tower of Babel and why God confused the languages. Because we still have a lot of subjective opinions. Everyone seems to have their own perspective and their own way of looking at things. People just do not understand each other a lot of the time. Some try more than others.

 

[Diamond7]

May I suggest checking out the churches on the christianityexplored web site a nd see how they stack up against your list.

No one is perfect. No church is perfect. Because perfect means mature and we are all a work in progress. We are all to produce fruit, but even if a tree does not produce fruit - God does not give up on it. He will cultivate and hope the tree will bear fruit in due season. Only trees that bear fruit are able to reproduce themselves. The seed is in the fruit.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem to be of the intellectual type.

What is your opinion of the critiques of evolution?

That's a question that'll never go out of style it seems. It's always relevant to our struggles to somehow get all the pieces to fit together.

In short, I think the various critiques of evolution are somewhat on the weak side where science is being fully engaged and those critiques end up being more a form of philosophical outlook upon the world than they are bona-fide discernments about the efficacy of the theory of evolution.

I know that may sound like a bummer, but just keep in mind that there are more than a handful of various perspectives on exactly what and how evolution works and the extent to which is can be held in juxtapostion with our faith in Christ and Sacred Scripture.

Just know that without getting into specifics, my view of this will be something that approximates that of Catholic geneticist, Francis Collins, rather than that of an atheist die-hard like Richard Dawkins. At the same time, being that I'm am existentialist, I'm not bothered if other fellow Christians feel they don't believe in evolution and want to hold to a more literal interpretation of God's World, particularly where Genesis 1-3 are concerned.

So, that's the short of my opinion, for whatever it's worth.


Peace!

 

[Diamond7]

What is your opinion of the critiques of evolution?

Evolution and the Bible both deal with a common ancestor. People do not read the genealogies in the Bible, so they do not understand that. I always read every word in the Bible and I did not skip over anything. The Bible talks about Eden and Science - Biology tells us what a biodiverse ecosystem is. I have a bush that grows like crazy. The birds love that tree and they fertilize it. So it is a whole ecosystem in itself. I have a book about that called the song of trees.