The Pastor King (New)

[truefiction1]

what is the true gospel?

can you say what that is?

what does a person have to do to be saved in your understanding?

In order to be saved, a person must wind up receiving the gift of Eternal Life.

 

[LoveofTruth]

In order to be saved, a person must wind up receiving the gift of Eternal Life.

have you ever read the actual gospel in 1 Cor 15;1-4?

 

[LoveofTruth]

Neither does the word "Trinity" show up anywhere in Scripture. So is it your belief that since "Trinity" is not Scriptural that the Church doctrine of the "Trinity" is invalid?

no I am not against the word Trinity. But the word "sacrament, means

"SACRAMENTS

sak'-ra-ments:

1. The Term:

The word "sacrament" comes from the Latin sacramentum, which in the classical period of the language was used in two chief senses:

(1) as a legal term to denote the sum of money deposited by two parties to a suit which was forfeited by the loser and appropriated to sacred uses;

(2) as a military term to designate the oath of obedience taken by newly enlisted soldiers.

...In the Greek New Testament, however, there is no word nor even any general idea corresponding to "sacrament," nor does the earliest history of Christianity afford any trace of the application of the term to certain rites of the church. Pliny (circa 112 AD) describes the Christians of Bithynia as "binding themselves by a sacramentum to commit no kind of crime" (Epistles x.97), but scholars are now pretty generally agreed that Pliny here uses the word in its old Roman sense of an oath or solemn obligation, so that its occurrence in this passage is nothing more than an interesting coincidence."

from another writer of old times Robert Barclay

"
II. That which comes first under observation is the name "sacrament," which is strange that Christians should stick to and contend so much for; since it is not to be found in all the Scripture, but was borrowed from the military oaths among the heathens, from whom the Christians, when they began to apostatize, did borrow many superstitious terms and observations, that they might thereby ingratiate themselves and the more easily gain the heathens to their religion, which practice (though perhaps intended by them for good, yet as being the fruit of human policy and not according to God's wisdom) has had very pernicious consequences. I see not how any, whether Papists or Protestants, especially the latter, can in reason quarrel us for denying this term, which it seems the Spirit of God saw not meet to inspire the penmen of the Scriptures to leave unto us.

Obj. But if it be said that it is not the name but the thing they contend for:

Answ. I answer, let the name then, as not being Scriptural, be laid aside, and we shall see at first entrance how much benefit will redound by laying aside this traditional term and betaking us to plainness of Scripture language, for presently the great contest about the number of them will vanish: since there is no term used in Scripture that can be made use of, whether we call them "institutions," "ordinances," "precepts," "commandments," "appointments" or "laws," &c., that would afford ground for such a debate, since neither will Papists affirm that there are only seven, or Protestants only two, of any of these aforementioned.

Obj. If it be said that this controversy arises from the definition of the thing as well as from the name:

Answ. It will be found otherwise, for whatever way we take their definition of a "sacrament," whether as an "outward visible sign whereby inward grace is conferred," or only "signified." This definition will agree to many things which neither Papists nor Protestants will acknowledge to be sacraments. If they be expressed under the name of "sealing ordinances," as some do, I could never see neither by reason nor Scripture how this title could be appropriate to them, more than to any other Christian religious performance: for that must needs properly be "a sealing ordinance," which makes the persons receiving it infallibly certain of the promise, or thing sealed to them"

 

[Episaw]

One of the questions is, how are they called ? And how are they made pastors?.The modern idea is to buy their way into bible school take a pastoral course and do a exam then they are an "official"pastor and some go on to be called "Masters of Divinity" etc. These worldly titles and flattering titles and even the whole way they are made pastors is not the biblical way. God gives gifts to men, no man can buy it or study enough to be in that gift. Is is a spiritual gift from God.

Many of the so called "pastors" today may not have such a gift even if they spent money to go to a school and study and had other men give them a certificate etc.

And Jesus said call no man master, for one is your master even Christ. Yet they seem to have no problem calling themselves masters. Master means a guide. But jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth. And it is God who works in us to will and to do and to make us perfect unto EVERY good work.

I love studying and searching the scriptures and reading books. I am the proverbial bookworm. I have over 1,000 books in my personal library and nearly every week I download a book onto my E reader.

About 10 years ago, I embarked on a 2 year study of the New Testament Church which involved reading about 60 books on the subject and looking at the scriptures in the original Greek.

When I had finished and written it all up, I had material sufficient for a PhD. I went about looking at various bible colleges to submit my work to and in the middle of it all I heard the Lord say "No, it will only draw attention to yourself."

So my PhD is in name only not in fact.

I do realise however that many so called pastors haven't a clue about the truth of scripture. I have fallen foul of some because I have said to them that the spin they put on it is not what the scripture means.

Last year I was thrown out of a church because I asked the preacher a question. Apparently, the leadership is infallible (and it is not Catholic) so no one is allowed to ask questions. What they say is gospel truth, even when it is not.

It is not uncommon for some members of the congregation to be more educated and learned than the pastor so they have to sit and listen each week to some trite commentary on the scriptures that is totally irrelevant and wrong.

If a pastor cannot get people filled with the Holy Spirit and fulfilling their role in the gifts and he can't give them solid meat from the Word, then he would do everyone a favour if he resigned.

One thing that has not been mentioned and which I know is the truth as research has shown this, Derek Prince reckoned 50% of pastors should never be pastors as the only reason they are is because they are coping with rejection and the public aspect of the ministry gives them some semblance of notoriety and recognition.

My wife and I used to attend a church that had a big ministry to those with rejection so we learned all the symptoms.

When we moved to the country we live in now, we would go to a church service and when we came out at the end we would look at each other and say "rejection" as it was plain for us to see it in the preacher.

Apparently, I am told by the people that have done the research that there are over 10,000 ex-ministers who have gone back into a secular profession.

They claim burnout or unrealistic expectations of them which may well be right but I add that they should never have gone into the ministry because they did so as a result of their rejection.

 

[truefiction1]

have you ever read the actual gospel in 1 Cor 15;1-4?

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is just one example of a Scriptural text that is often removed from the context of the "WHOLE" so that it can be presented, deceptively, as if it is that WHOLE (when it is in fact only a small part thereof) in order to promote a false teaching about what salvation is.

 

[truefiction1]

.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sacrament is borrowed from a Roman term that refers to what was a civil religious rite, and not a mere oath. The Greek equivalent term is mysterion. It is a religious term, and it is used in the New Testament.

Latin was not a language with as much vocabulary given to the metaphysical or the religious, unlike Greek. The Romans were a very pragmatic people for the most part. So some of the words used to convey the same concept do not have the exact same etymologies or original denotations. But that should not be understood as confusion about the concepts. The notion of mysterion is found in the earliest parts of the New Testament and would have been understood by Paul's Greek-speaking audience.

 

[Episaw]

Sacrament is borrowed from a Roman term that refers to what was a civil religious rite, and not a mere oath. The Greek equivalent term is mysterion. It is a religious term, and it is used in the New Testament.

Latin was not a language with as much vocabulary given to the metaphysical or the religious, unlike Greek. The Romans were a very pragmatic people for the most part. So some of the words used to convey the same concept do not have the exact same etymologies or original denotations. But that should not be understood as confusion about the concepts. The notion of mysterion is found in the earliest parts of the New Testament and would have been understood by Paul's Greek-speaking audience.

And you are going to tell us where it is in the New Testament.

 

[FireDragon76]

And you are going to tell us where it is in the New Testament.

1 Cor 4:1

Just an example.

 

[Episaw]

1 Cor 4:1

Just an example.

As I understand "mysterion" it means to shut your mouth about secrets and has nothing at all to do with sacraments.

 

[truefiction1]

As I understand "mysterion" it means to shut your mouth about secrets and has nothing at all to do with sacraments.

"Mysterion" is a reference to all of the great mysteries in the Church. The practice of counting them is not of the early Church, but something that developed in Roman Catholicism. It's sometimes adopted by Orthodox when talking about the mysteries. The proper way to understand the mysteries in the Church is to consider every aspect of Life in the Church to be "mysterion". (Ephesians 5:32)

 

[LoveofTruth]

"Mysterion" is a reference to all of the great mysteries in the Church. The practice of counting them is not of the early Church, but something that developed in Roman Catholicism. It's sometimes adopted by Orthodox when talking about the mysteries. The proper way to understand the mysteries in the Church is to consider every aspect of Life in the Church to be "mysterion". (Ephesians 5:32)

no word "sacraments" anywhere in that verse in Greek.

 

[LoveofTruth]

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 is just one example of a Scriptural text that is often removed from the context of the "WHOLE" so that it can be presented, deceptively, as if it is that WHOLE (when it is in fact only a small part thereof) in order to promote a false teaching about what salvation is.

Notice in 1 Cor 15:1-4 we do not read of anything added to the gospel, no circumcision, no Mosaic law, no Sabbaths, no water baptism, no sacraments added for salvation etc. To add anything to the gospel is to make another gospel.

 

[truefiction1]

no word "sacraments" anywhere in that verse in Greek.

The word "sacraments" is just the Latin word chosen to represent the Greek word "mysterion" which is translated "mystery" in the English Bible.

 

[truefiction1]

Notice in 1 Cor 15:1-4 we do not read of anything added to the gospel, no circumcision, no Mosaic law, no Sabbaths, no water baptism, no sacraments added for salvation etc. To add anything to the gospel is to make another gospel.

You forgot to include "Matrimony".

 

[LoveofTruth]

You forgot to include "Matrimony".

ok well add whatever you do to the gospel and you make it another gospel

the marriage is a type of Christ and His church.

One of the problems with many religious forms is that they add mens traditions that make the word of God of no effect and fight against body ministry and Christ headship and function in the church. Instead of being all led by the Spirit and waiting on the Lord in God's order and peace and ruling in their hearts, they set up rituals, and forms without power and the entire form becomes a dry religious tradition of men where the shadows replace the reality.

The Lord's supper was at one time a love feast , or a feast of charity among them where they had joy and remembrance of Christ and his work for them in a common union among each other, where they being many are one bread in Christ and all partakers of that one bread.

But it became a ritual and sacrifice and had all the trapping of religious form with priest, long robes candles incense sacrifice, altars, very similar to the OT priesthood.

For example do you literally believe that the bread and cup that Jesus was drawing attention to in the last supper was literally Jesus body and blood? As the Roman Catholics do?

 

[LoveofTruth]

The word "sacraments" is just the Latin word chosen to represent the Greek word "mysterion" which is translated "mystery" in the English Bible.

do you believe that God's grace comes to people who do these physical "sacraments" and that by doing them they merit grace?

and do you believe by men meriting grace from God by "sacraments" they then have salvation?

if so maybe read ( Epesians 2:8,9 and Mark 7:6-13 et)

 

[LoveofTruth]

The word "sacraments" is just the Latin word chosen to represent the Greek word "mysterion" which is translated "mystery" in the English Bible.

would you say this is how you understand the error of sacraments in your church?

"Salvation is achieved by performing 7 Sacraments during one's lifetime. These are 'Channels' in which we receive God's Grace. "

 

[truefiction1]

ok well add whatever you do to the gospel and you make it another gospel

the marriage is a type of Christ and His church.

One of the problems with many religious forms is that they add mens traditions that make the word of God of no effect and fight against body ministry and Christ headship and function in the church. Instead of being all led by the Spirit and waiting on the Lord in God's order and peace and ruling in their hearts, they set up rituals, and forms without power and the entire form becomes a dry religious tradition of men where the shadows replace the reality.

The Lord's supper was at one time a love feast , or a feast of charity among them where they had joy and remembrance of Christ and his work for them in a common union among each other, where they being many are one bread in Christ and all partakers of that one bread.

But it became a ritual and sacrifice and had all the trapping of religious form with priest, long robes candles incense sacrifice, altars, very similar to the OT priesthood.

For example do you literally believe that the bread and cup that Jesus was drawing attention to in the last supper was literally Jesus body and blood? As the Roman Catholics do?

I believe it is exactly what Christ says it is (eternally present tense) and exactly what His Apostle Paul affirms it to be.

 

[LoveofTruth]

I believe it is exactly what Christ says it is (eternally present tense) and exactly what His Apostle Paul affirms it to be.

Your trying to be evasive to hide the heresy,

Do you believe as the Eastern Orthodox do that the

"The Eucharist is at the center of Eastern Christian faith communities, both Orthodox and Eastern Catholic. Orthodox Eastern Christians affirm the real presence in the Sacred Mysteries (consecrated bread and wine) which they believe to be the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ."

If so, this is not what scripture says.

Jesus said,

Matthew 26:26,28
"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body...
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

so clearly the bread he was breaking and the cup he was drinking with them was a figure of His body and blood. Because Jesus says this is His blood of the "new testament". But Jesus hadn't died yet so the new testament was not in effects yet."

we read

"15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth....

20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."(Hebrews 9:15-17,20-22 KJV)


and

"11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death"( Isaiah 53:11,12 KJV)

and none were to eat blood literally in the Old and new testament

Genesis 9:4
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

Leviticus 7:27
"Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Leviticus 17:10
And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."

Acts 15:20
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.