Matthew 24

Originally posted by Rajk999
Wrong. The world needs more followers of Jesus Christ.
People [like yourself] just cannot resist the temptation to place men up on a pedestal.

Raj, you don't know a thing about me, go annoy someone else.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
Raj, you don't know a thing about me, go annoy someone else.

We know only what each other post here. Thats enough for me to see that you have a weakness for eloquent men who seem to be good in the eyes of men. Martin Luther King is not what the world needs. He may have had some good qualities but he was a weak and fallible man nevertheless.

Originally posted by sonship
...We Christians ABIDE IN JESUS CHRIST...

You dont understand what abide in Christ means. Read it yourself:

Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. (John 15:4-10 KJV)

Abiding in Christ means to follow HIS WORDS AND COMMANDMENTS.

If you think that every Christian does that then you are blind as a bat.

Originally posted by Rajk999
We know only what each other post here. Thats enough for me to see that you have a weakness for eloquent men who seem to be good in the eyes of men. Martin Luther King is not what the world needs. He may have had some good qualities but he was a weak and fallible man nevertheless.

You miss the point, as you usually do. This world does need Jesus, there is no doubt about that, it's needs Christians to take a different tact that what we have done over the last however many years... because things are not working.

Your problem as I see it... whenever somebody posts or proposes something that may be encouraging or is a change, or different or new, another view... you are right there to try and slam, and I use the term slam.... the door shut on what is being discussed... you discourage! YOU are the one who talks, talks, talks and talks.

Have you ever expressed an encouraging word towards your fellow Christian brothers in this forum?

I only asked for thoughts and opinions with the OP. If you were not interested in the OP and have no intention of watching the video to discuss and talk about Jonathan Welton... what do you want?

Why do you have to be so divisive?

Originally posted by sonship
You should not despair.
King was more dreaming of the millennial kingdom.
This is a valid vision and dream. But first to bring in that age the Lord must recover the Body of Christ in practicality. And for that He must recover the local church life. And He is.

You should learn about the Lord recovery.

http://www.lordsrecovery.org/

I did inquire of your church to find out more about what is believed. While I am in agreement with some things, other things I am not. My impression is that the organization seems a little exclusive. By this I mean there are the church leaders/founders and it is through their writings/sermons that the church functions, this is a little constrictive for me. There are new leaders with new visions that come up from with in the body that have a part to play and a word for today, if we stick with just the teachings of a few... we may miss out.... this is not just for the local church but can be any church. The body of Christ is broad and diverse, exclusivity is not in the best interest... we need to embrace our diversity and grow together as God intended.

I may be wrong about the local church, but this is my first impressions.

Originally posted by yoctobyte

I did inquire of your church to find out more about what is believed. While I am in agreement with some things, other things I am not. My impression is that the organization seems a little exclusive.

Explain where you see "exclusivity" in the practice of the local church please.

All believers are received at the Lord;s Table without the kind of examinations one might undergo at an Exclusive Brethren congregation.

In the webstite "The Beliefs and Practices of the Local Churches" under the FAQ "What is Your Attitude Towards Other Christians?" the co-workers have written this.

What is your altitude toward other Christians?

We would like to make it emphatically clear that we neither believe nor teach that one must be in a local church in order to be a genuine Christian. We recognize that in the Roman Catholic Church, in the denominations, and in the independent groups there are many genuine blood-washed, Spirit-regenerated believers in Christ, and we receive them as our brothers and sisters in the Lord. All who have saving faith in the Lord Jesus are welcome to all our meetings, especially the Lord’s table, where we testify of the oneness of the Body of Christ. Although we must, for conscience' sake, stand apart from organized religion, we do not stand apart from our brothers and sisters in Christ. In faithfulness to the Lord, we stand on the unique ground of the church for the sake of the Lord’s testimony. But we do not take this stand with a narrow, exclusive, or sectarian spirit. On the contrary, we take our stand on behalf of the whole Body; we receive all believers even as the Lord has received us.(Top) [b]

By this I mean there are the church leaders/founders and it is through their writings/sermons that the church functions, this is a little constrictive for me.

I disagree. We emphasize the experience of Christ, living Christ and enjoying Christ for the building up of one another.

My attitude is that as what Paul expressed in [b]First Corinthians - ALL of the servants of God are ours whether Darby or Luther or Augustine or whoever. All are ours. And we derive supply from all the useful servants of the Lord from the past.

"So then let no one boast in men, for all things are yours, Whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or life or death of things present or things to come; all are yours, But you are Christ's, and Christ is God's." (1 Cor. 3:22,23)

So whatever Christian teacher you might recommend, as far as the healthy and useful things that servant may have shared or IS sharing - they are ours. I refuse to be robbed of ANY useful servant of Christ to the extent that he or she ministers life and truth.

All the teachers are ours.

There are new leaders with new visions that come up from with in the body that have a part to play and a word for today, if we stick with just the teachings of a few... we may miss out.... this is not just for the local church but can be any church.

Local church means one city for one church. Local church means locality of dwelling is the only legitimate basis to distinguish one church from another.

What could be more inclusive than this? This is God's design and we cannot improve upon it.

" I was in spirit on the Lord's Day and heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, saying, What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches:

To Ephesus
and to Smryna
and to Pergamos
and to Thyatira
and to Sardis
and to Philadelphia
and to Laodicea.

And I turned to see the voice that spoke with me; and when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands. " (See Rev. 1:10,12)

One city = one church.
Each one local church mapped to each locality respectively.
This is the God ordained way OUT of the problem of denominations and divisions.

There is a blessing upon taking this way.

The body of Christ is broad and diverse, exclusivity is not in the best interest... we need to embrace our diversity and grow together as God intended.

What is more embracing then for Christians to say - "In this locality we are one. Just like the New Testament. We meet as the church for the locality."

What could be more inclusive and embracing then "one city - one church" ?
The Lord is recovering this oneness. And we praise Him.

I may be wrong about the local church, but this is my first impressions.

Now notice. One city one church does not necessarily mean that the whole church has every meeting in one meeting place.

In Jerusalem they met from house to house. But the Holy Spirit never says "the churches [plural] in Jerusalem" The Spirit has Luke write "the church which was at Jerusalem" though there were thousands of believers who met from house to house.

In First Corinthians Paul also says something about "the whole church comes together in one place"

" If therefore the whole church comes together in one place ..." (1 Cor. 14:23a)

The church there is "the church which is in Corinth" (1:1)

So the church which is in Corinth could come together in one place. But the arrangement might not necessarily call for them to do so.

However like the Jerusalem church the local church could come together in more than one place - ie. from house to house.

So the local church is one church for one city. But it does not necessitate that the whole church comes together in one place. It does call for them to be under the vision that in the city there is one church - the local church.

Today the church in Taipei meets in more than 15 meeting halls.
The church in New York meets in about three.
The church in Anaheim meets in three or more.

In Acts prayer was made for Peter in prison by the whole church - ie. the church which was at Jerusalem. Yet they prayed in many houses. When Peter was miraculously released he went to one of these home meetings.

Pertaining to a city the church is always mentioned in the singular tense in the New Testament.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
In an online post this morning on Facebook...
https://www.facebook.com/Jonathan-Welton-155606377891031/

[b]Jonathan Welton

Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down in 1968. He had a dream and his dream had a literal, practical application to our current world. His dream was relevant.

Why has the church not been able to produce a new Martin Luth ...[text shortened]...
I think the book is 'The Late Great Planet Earth', first published in 1970.
Food for thought.[/b]

Yes, and this book has formed the basis of most of my 'endtime theology' for years now.

Welton is wrong, btw, in much the same way as Rajk is wrong.

When I get home tonight, I'll share the name of the other book a good portion of my beliefs come from. I just need to lay hands on the book to get the title right.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, and this book has formed the basis of most of my 'endtime theology' for years now.

Welton is wrong, btw, in much the same way as Rajk is wrong.

When I get home tonight, I'll share the name of the other book a good portion of my beliefs come from. I just need to lay hands on the book to get the title right.

I would be very interested in what you have, thanks.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
I would be very interested in what you have, thanks.

Well, I don't mean to say that my beliefs come from this book, I misspoke.

What I mean to say is that my beliefs come directly from the Bible, but I agree with what Hal Lindsey wrote in The Late, Great Planet Earth. Another author who has captured my endtime beliefs is Dr. David Jeremiah in Agents of the Apocalypse.

I do not agree with some of the writers in the forewards to Welton's book Raptureless. Comments like "it [traditional endtime eschatology] creates an excuse within the minds of Christians to just leave it to Jesus to clean up the mess" don't help much and have nothing to do with why I interpret Revelation and other prophetic books (Isaiah, Daniel) as I do. I believe that Christians should be active in their community to spread the Good News of the Gospel and I feel it is still important to help people find Christ well before "the world goes to hell in a handbasket". There is still much we can and should do to "roll up our sleeves" and help improve the lives of people who are struggling not only here at home, but worldwide. The better people's lives are right now, the better they can handle what is to come and to "endure to the end". And I am not a "fear-monger", far from it. I had a rough young adulthood and my life right here, right now, is way, way better than it's ever been and this difference is due to Christ in my life, and I feel compelled to share this treasure with those who seek Him and those who need Him. So no, I do not agree that traditional endtime eschatology is born of fear. It is born of hope. Hope that we can escape what is coming, hope that we can help others through it if it comes to that. But knowledge is key. Knowing the script for the final act is paramount to survive it, and even if we don't survive it, we can still emerge with our souls intact by staying true to our Savior.

Originally posted by Suzianne

"it [traditional endtime eschatology] creates an excuse within the minds of Christians to just leave it to Jesus to clean up the mess" don't help much and have nothing to do with why I interpret Revelation and other prophetic books (Isaiah, Daniel) as I do.

This is true. But some teachers do no good to make up a heresy to counter another heresy. That is the problem often. The concern may be right. The medicine they come up with to treat the ailment ends up being just as bad.

You cannot fix a bad teaching by replacing it with another bad teaching.

IE. "After The Late Great Planet Earth popularism of the 70s we will now try to correct the excesses of those beliefs by teaching that Jesus already returned."

Church history is filled with instances of teachers falling on opposite ends of extreme positions and trying to fix bad teachings with opposite bad teachings.

Originally posted by yoctobyte
You miss the point, as you usually do. This world does need Jesus, there is no doubt about that, it's needs Christians to take a different tact that what we have done over the last however many years... because things are not working.

Your problem as I see it... whenever somebody posts or proposes something that may be encouraging or is a change, or di ...[text shortened]... iscuss and talk about Jonathan Welton... what do you want?

Why do you have to be so divisive?

You miss the point as you usually do.

I never said that the world needs Jesus.
I said the world needs to FOLLOW THE COMMANDMENTS OF JESUS.

Things are not working because of so-called Christians who preach otherwise, much like yourself.

If divisive means that I do not support this so-called corrupt form of Christianity, then thanks for the compliment.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You miss the point as you usually do.

I never said that the world needs Jesus.
I said the world needs to FOLLOW THE COMMANDMENTS OF JESUS.

Things are not working because of so-called Christians who preach otherwise, much like yourself.

If divisive means that I do not support this so-called corrupt form of Christianity, then thanks for the compliment.

So, just so i understand you...

Are you making a distinction between following Jesus and 'Follow the commandments of Jesus'?
Are these two things different to you or are they the same?

Rest and Enjoyment Before Work

From A Divine Priniciple - The Life Study of the book of Exodus by Witness Lee.

A Divine Principle

It is a divine principle that God does not ask us to work until we have had enjoyment. God first supplies us with enjoyment. Then after a full enjoyment with Him and of Him, we may work together with Him. If we do not know how to have enjoyment with God and how to enjoy God Himself, we shall not know how to work with Him. We shall not know how to be one with God in His divine work.

We do emphasize the matter of working with God and not working for God by our own strength. Yes, we should work with God and even by God. But according to what the Bible reveals, it is not even sufficient merely to work with God. We need to be one with God in His work. This requires that we enjoy Him. If we do not know how to enjoy God and be filled with God, we shall not know how to work with Him, how to be one with Him in His work.

A very good illustration of this principle is found in the New Testament. The New Testament ministry of the apostles began with the enjoyment they had on the day of Pentecost. The disciples did not work for six days and then enjoy the Lord on the day of Pentecost. The actual situation was that the Lord had told them to wait until the Spirit came upon them to fill them. With what were the disciples filled when they were filled with the Spirit? No doubt, they were filled with the enjoyment of the Lord. Because they were filled with the Spirit, others thought that they were drunk with wine. Actually they were filled with the enjoyment of the heavenly wine. Only after they had been filled with this enjoyment did they begin to work with God. This is the way to work with God, the way to work in oneness with Him. When Peter stood up with the apostles to preach the gospel and thereby do a work for God, they all were one with God in His work.

The day of Pentecost was the first day of the week. Pentecost denotes the fiftieth day after a period of seven weeks, or forty-nine days. We know from Leviticus 23 that the day of Pentecost was fifty days after the feast of firstfruit. This means that Pentecost was the first day of the eighth week. Therefore, concerning the day of Pentecost, we see the principle of the first day.

To man, the day of rest has always been the first day. According to the Old Testament Sabbath, the day of man’s rest was his first day. Likewise, according to the New Testament, the eighth day, the day of rest for man, was also the first day.

According to the principle in the Old Testament, man’s day of rest is a day that comes after God’s work has been completed. Man does not rest after his own work is finished; he rests after the completion of God’s work and enjoys it. God works, and man enjoys. Man enjoys what God has accomplished in His work.

http://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n

Originally posted by yoctobyte
So, just so i understand you...

Are you making a distinction between following Jesus and 'Follow the commandments of Jesus'?
Are these two things different to you or are they the same?

For me they are the same. But for many Christians here, I have noticed that they would say it is important to follow Jesus and then with the next breath say that following the commandments are not essential. So they must think that there is a difference.

Christ has commanded that people follow his commandments, and this is the way to the Kingdom of God. Christ will judge who does follow and who only follows with their mouth.