|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 16, 2009 21:51:21 GMT -5
I started the blog up the address is publickservants.blogspot.comThere are a few contributors so far but it would be nice to have some more. Let me know if you want to participate!
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 7, 2009 21:01:04 GMT -5
Hard to sue the hell out of someone, but you might be able to preach it out.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 7, 2009 20:58:35 GMT -5
One thing about him, he knows the date.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 7, 2009 9:57:42 GMT -5
I see there is a link to an Anglican web site, Anglicans are very RCC friendly, do you link to RC web sites as well?
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 7, 2009 9:53:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 4, 2009 19:51:53 GMT -5
If that's you on youtube you sure had your hands full at the Brickyard at NCSU
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 4, 2009 19:13:19 GMT -5
I have to second that, what an excellent report. Looks like your perseverance paid off by the third day.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Oct 28, 2009 23:12:58 GMT -5
I guess it would look something like this: publickservants.blogspot.com/Anyone interested, send me a message with your email and I'll either invite you to be an author, or possibly, you can email me your updates and I can post them.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Oct 28, 2009 16:33:51 GMT -5
Uncle Raisin! I thought you were a goner! God bless!
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Oct 25, 2009 19:12:22 GMT -5
Here's a link to the sermon (audio) I mentioned in the web chat during the show called The Impact of the Smell of Battle on the Minds and Hearts of Young People. Pastor Matt Trewhella is the founder of Missionaries to the Pre Born and an open air preacher. It's from a conference at a Reformed church but he's not reformed. For some reason it's broken up into 9 segments. www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=a7470effc5e5d34dbda4076e811714c8f95f5336c7103212e04f31aacf568dab
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Oct 25, 2009 17:11:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Oct 24, 2009 21:33:36 GMT -5
I'm looking for Halloween outreach resources, if anyone has any links to tips for preaching on/about halloween, tips, facts, bible verses, I'd appreciate it!
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Oct 22, 2009 17:31:51 GMT -5
What do you all think....I've been looking at different open air preaching blogs, and there isn't much out there, what's there seems to be a bit stagnant, no recent activity, etc.
I'd like to put up a blog with multiple users that would cover open air articles, itineraries, recent activity and updates on different ministries, etc.
Would any of you like to participate in this?
Let me know your thoughts!
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Dec 10, 2008 10:30:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Dec 10, 2008 10:28:49 GMT -5
I just found this: www.newenglandoutreach.com/audio/It was well hidden, but I'm pretty good at finding links that are right on the main menu! I don't think the 30 pastors audio is there, but it looks like some good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Dec 6, 2008 23:09:31 GMT -5
That sounds great - any chance of getting the audio?
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 27, 2008 2:55:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 25, 2008 15:56:40 GMT -5
Those were good shows, and I appreciated Kerrigan's sermons on TULIP. If you're out there, have you uploaded the teaching you mentioned with your own (or a different) acronym? Also, I just found this and will be listening to it soon: www.finneyworks.com/CF04.htmlI had to go through some hoops to make the links work, though. thanks
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 25, 2008 15:30:49 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, I am looking for more audio on topics like conditional security.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 25, 2008 15:23:52 GMT -5
Praying for you.
You can do it - you have done it before, know by your admission on this message board that you have done so in the past and your testimony of that and your testimony to contentious and hateful visitors on at this site is admirable to say the least.
I am "confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus".
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 25, 2008 15:15:12 GMT -5
Well said, once again, and this from someone who has had formal training in Calvinist theology (though I'm no Phd).
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 22, 2008 8:53:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 20, 2008 13:30:54 GMT -5
OK, duh, I voted, because of what I am currently doing within my fellowship, not what I think would be right etc. We practice quarterly communion, and I think the elders are incrementally applying the groundwork for weekly. Our bulletin is looking more and more like a liturgical order of worship all the time.
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 20, 2008 13:27:51 GMT -5
Uh oh - Hi Joe. I'm sure I don't have time for this one, but I think "The Eucharist" is an evolution that grew up along side of hierarchical church leadership and that there is much indication of it actually being a full meal more akin to "pot luck", and not a mystical ceremony. This would negate the paedocommunion debate, the "members only" debate, etc, if we viewed it as a rehearsal dinner for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb - a real supper (with alcoholic beverages, BTW) that promotes relationship, fellowship and one-anothering rather than inward inspection.
I think it is better described as the Love Feast, which how much of the early church still described it (closer to the NT Apostolic age than Justin Martyr, but not by too much).
It would seem to be one of the main reasons, if not the main reason, for the Lord's Day gathering. Weekly communion is probably a good start towards reclaiming it, but it necessarily needs to be less of a mystical ceremony and more of a gathering (breaking bread refers to eating a meal). It hurts me to say this because I so love the Liturgy and how it works towards the supper, so much that I spent much time and money seeking out and visiting Reformed congregations that were "getting it right" in regards to the liturgy and the supper. But I have to say it.
Like I said, uh-oh....
Now I am not sure how to answer the poll with the Eucharist being a somewhat tricky description. I'm going to wait on it.
See you all next week!
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 20, 2008 13:01:09 GMT -5
FS - Amen to that. Seek Him and find Him, only then can someone know truth, only then comes the understanding of true freedom - freedom from the bondage of sin, sinful lifestyles and the wreckage that follows!
Do not be tempted to believe those who have not found Him, they will lie cheat and steal in an attempt to lead you away from the truth, even when they seem so nice and honest and smart: [glow=red,2,300] 1 John 2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.[/glow]
They are antichrists! Read on: [glow=red,2,300]2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.[/glow]
We need to be careful who we are influenced by on this message board and everywhere else!
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 20, 2008 12:21:21 GMT -5
Uh - Oh, disputed books, a new can of worms! 'Holy men who were taught by the Spirit', again going back to the inspired writing of the Apostles (and the prophets, for now I generalize). The scripture is self-confirming (internally), the disputed books (I believe) are not, but I do think we should have the disputed books in our bibles because, as with the early church fathers, we can still learn much from them - with this I fully agree. As long as we're talking about the deuterocanonical books and not the gnostic "gospels" like Thomas (what was that, 200 years or so AD? Can't recall offhand). Reformers throughout the ages kept to many strongholds and thus I am open to the possibility that the deuterocanonical books (the "Catholic" extra books) could be inspired. I've really only read parts of Maccabees, the rest of my info comes from proof text style debunkings from protestant pastors. OK, preists, yes, technical and general or whatever there is definitely the "priesthood of all believers" because a priest in the Levitical (biblical) sense is one who mediates between God and man, which would be the believer himself or herself (uh oh women priests!) with our Lord Jesus Christ as the Great High Priest. But that is different from a pastor, which is found in the Greek word poimen, translated such in Eph 4:11, and also as shepherd elsewhere, the two being synonymous. Now, a "pastor" is gifted for teaching, and meets the requirements outlined in the "pastoral" epistles, but is really just another brother in the flock, not someone elevated above (which I'm sure will bring us to the authority passages!) as if there is a legitimate NT clergy/laity divide. I think the next layer after the foundation in the building is the bricks, the church, the whole church, and nothing but the church, with the bricks being the rest of the flock after the NT Apostles and NT era prophets, whatever the gifting (although I must allow for apostles and prophets in our day as stated in a previous post, every Reformed bone in my body cries out against that though). The writings of the early church fathers are invaluable, and have even influenced me on what I believe about certain things, but probably in a different way than you mean, I think. But they also point to a clergy/laity divide that is not to be found in the NT, but gradually evolved as a pragmatic way to deal with the fear of false teaching. But the bible tells how to deal with false teaching, and it's not by appointing a ruler over the people, as the early church fathers ended up doing (though it seems to be gradual). Clement of Rome said in his epstle to the Corinthians, AD95: Which is taken by most to mean a NT priestly caste, but even in his own letter he necessitates against it with words that are traceable to our scriptures: Which tells me all we really need are the inspired words of God contained in the Old and New Testaments, even though Clement of Rome was a great man of the faith (and Luther gets all the credit for justification! Pshaw!). Everyone should look at this letter, it's great. mb-soft.com/believe/txv/clement1.htm
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 20, 2008 2:20:28 GMT -5
I'm glad that you are referring to an era closer to the Apostolic age, as many say "the early church" and mean 400 years+, or worse yet, but a close second, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. Not exactly the early church.
I have heard speculation based on writings (or lists) from the early church age, but we don't and can't know the totality of what they had at hand. It is obvious they didn't carry around "bibles", but the Gospels and letters were circulating within a very short time of being written, and they were written very close together (I believe the most accurate estimate to be within a period of 10 years and yes I hold to the early dating of Revelation, which is an entirely different discussion!).
I guess I would rephrase and say the early church confirmed, and not determined, which books were canonical. To say "Had the Early Church not declared them canonical, they would not have survived to our present day" is a confusing statement to me, as if humans had to put their stamp of approval on God's word, or it would not exist? But yes I agree that God did use the church (the body of Christ, his believers) to preserve scripture.
Again, they may have thought they were "declaring", but in actuality, they were confirming, and I'm not sure that means we have to copy their traditions (after all you mention "priests", which is a clearly unbiblical office for NT Christians, I think you would agree).
Also I think it safe to say that Ephesians 2:19, "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets". is probably referring to the apostles and the prophets in their own time, and not throughout the post-Apostolic age, but considering some are given for the perfecting of the church, and we are far from perfect, I consider it possible that I'm wrong about that!
And the product of protestantism, yes, of course, I was referring mainly to our time or thereabouts, in reference to a previous comment, and I believe that relates more directly to the women in office issue. If it has become a job, like that, then it would seem natural to many that women can train for it also (boy to get there one would really have to do some exegetical mischief though).
I don't want to rag on those who have gone before us, certainly not, but the "old time religion" was also in need of perfecting, especially if it led to our current "next big thing" trendiness. Being immersed in Reformedom at the present time, I can see how it could lead to, as it often did, bloodshed and turmoil. We are probably more in agreement then we might think, cause I'm pretty sure I was going to say "We should simply want to be the Church that Jesus instituted nearly 2000yrs ago" first!!!
Amen, and amen...
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 19, 2008 13:57:23 GMT -5
We're on complete agreement that however you come to a decision, as a church, if the decision itself is unscriptural, it's wrong hands down. But consensus cannot include a vote, and will not work within a denominational structure. I'll try to give an example of how it might work in the near future. BTW my fellowship is in the reformed tradition and does not do any of the stuff I'm talking about, which distresses me to some degree.
I actually used to fervently believe these things, about the early church fathers and the church, but much less so know. If you are referring to the process prompted by Mancion, they already had and knew what was scripture, as it was confirmed by signs and wonders during the apostolic age. I am not completely in disagreement with you on the preservation of the scripture, but I completely disagree if you are trying to say we need to interpret the bible through the grid of tradition. It has to be the opposite. The early church fathers added unbiblical requirement after unbiblical requirement, maybe for what they saw as good (pragmatic) reason, but we need to continue the reformation and strip the tradition back as far as we can to the NT era, so that it matches with the completed cannon, and not stuff added later.
In the OT, which was the scripture being talked about most of the time in the epistles, they did not have the completed cannon, they were completing it, and I would argue that we need to interpret the OT with the NT and not the other way around. I hope I am not misunderstanding what you are trying to say, let me know if I am.
I still think that if we were able to strip off the remaining priestly and over institutionalized mindset the reformers were stuck on, these issues would not be such a big deal. Not that they would go away, certainly not, but we wouldn't have them infecting entire denominations as they do now, it spreads like wildfire, even though most denominations claim to have "bottom up" authority, and also claim "consensus", when really they are using Robert's Rules, the infections do come from the top down (mostly originating in seminaries and then passed down through the congregations). Problem is, pretty much anyone can just go in to these places, go through the hoops, preach three example sermons and have a job interview, and BANG! They are pastors, and usually become the Chief Elder. Whereas, elders should be people the congregation are familiar with, whose reputations can be verified, local, and not often a paid position. Often we impose too many qualifications and make it too hard or too daunting, but really what's needed are humble men that are mature in the Lord, not Greek scholars that deliver 45 minute seminary grade lectures every Sunday. There is a place for all of that (not so much on Sunday though), but a lot of that would be reserved for different ministries such as evangelists and those with a more "apostolic" ministry (church planter types, itinerate ministers, etc). Nothing wrong with knowledge acquisition, but we tend to spend way too much time on it when there *are* more important issues than debating the perseverance of the saints - which I love to debate, by the way. When the "Christian Walk" becomes endless knowledge acquisition, then something is wrong. But maybe I'm getting too far off subject here.
I know I didn't touch on everything, so remind me (or even correct me) and next time I am online I'll get back to it!
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 19, 2008 4:18:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kerygmata on Nov 19, 2008 3:25:43 GMT -5
And you thought (hoped?) I was done!
Positions: I would say yes and no - meaning yes there are "positions", but the formalizing of them in some sort of institutional manner always leads to major problems, because these people are "overseers" to guide the church through servanthood and example, they are part of the church, they are brothers in the Lord and not Fathers, and certainly not "overlords". My feeling is that the church has one head and that is the Lord Jesus Christ, and "office bearers" that try to be interim heads, or co-heads pretty much just foul things up. *** "The disciples of the original disciples" could get things as wrong as anybody, I mean, the gnostics and the judaizers got it all fouled up and they were right there with the first NT church. Error can creep in or it can just explode on the scene. *** I'm not arguing against different giftings, and certainly there are overlaps of giftings, I think that is different than what we're talking about here. *** Myself, I love the fact that God champions "unschooled, ordinary men" (or even "unlearned and ignorant men") as his messengers! *** (I don't know about you all, but this is great fun, I can't wait to see what's on here later today!)
|
|