Comments for Expressions of Faith http://www.oaks2b.com an outlet of encouragement, explanation, and exhortation Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:05:57 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on 6. Cultural and Social Norms and Scripture by 5. Christian Feminism? « Expressions of Faith http://www.oaks2b.com/2011/11/22/6-cultural-and-social-norms-and-scripture/comment-page-1/#comment-11 5. Christian Feminism? « Expressions of Faith Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:05:57 +0000 http://www.oaks2b.com/?p=107#comment-11 [...] 6. Cultural and Social Norms and Scripture Share this:EmailFacebookPrint October 8th, 2011 | Category: Christian Living, Community, [...] [...] 6. Cultural and Social Norms and Scripture Share this:EmailFacebookPrint October 8th, 2011 | Category: Christian Living, Community, [...]

]]> Comment on 5. Christian Feminism? by 4. Oppression « Expressions of Faith http://www.oaks2b.com/2011/10/08/5-christian-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-10 4. Oppression « Expressions of Faith Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:04:53 +0000 http://www.oaks2b.com/?p=101#comment-10 [...] 5. Christian Feminism?    3. Observations on the Two Positions » 4. Oppression Oppression (according to [...] [...] 5. Christian Feminism?    3. Observations on the Two Positions » 4. Oppression Oppression (according to [...]

]]> Comment on 4. Oppression by 3. Observations on the Two Positions « Expressions of Faith http://www.oaks2b.com/2011/10/08/4-oppression/comment-page-1/#comment-9 3. Observations on the Two Positions « Expressions of Faith Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:03:48 +0000 http://www.oaks2b.com/?p=100#comment-9 [...] 4. Oppression    2. Two Evangelical Positions on Women in the Church and in the Family » 3. [...] [...] 4. Oppression    2. Two Evangelical Positions on Women in the Church and in the Family » 3. [...]

]]> Comment on 3. Observations on the Two Positions by 2. Two Evangelical Positions on Women in the Church and in the Family « Expressions of Faith http://www.oaks2b.com/2011/10/08/3-observations-on-the-two-positions/comment-page-1/#comment-8 2. Two Evangelical Positions on Women in the Church and in the Family « Expressions of Faith Fri, 25 Nov 2011 05:02:47 +0000 http://www.oaks2b.com/?p=99#comment-8 [...] 3. Observations on the Two Positions    1. Introduction to Women in Leadership in the Church » 2. Two Evangelical [...] [...] 3. Observations on the Two Positions    1. Introduction to Women in Leadership in the Church » 2. Two Evangelical [...]

]]> Comment on What makes a church? …Contrasting Catholic and Quaker thinking by Colin http://www.oaks2b.com/2011/07/07/what-makes-a-church-contrasting-catholic-and-quaker-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Colin Mon, 11 Jul 2011 18:47:43 +0000 http://www.oaks2b.com/?p=81#comment-4 "Jesus healed 2 men of blindness, one by touching his eyes, and another by spitting in the dirt and applying the dirt to his eyes. If that happened in our day, it would start 2 denominations - the mudites and the anti-mudites." - Ravi Zacharias. I was raised in the Catholic church, yet my mother did not agree with all of their traditions, and taught me to listen to Scripture in the event that I saw any contrast between it and Catholic dogma. For example, in Sunday school as a kid, I remember being told that Jesus Himself founded the Catholic church, formed the church hierarchy, and appointed Peter as the supreme head of the church (the first Pope) to lead and guide the church, followed by the other Apostles, then the disciples. I remember getting confused by a particular passage in Galatians which seemed to contradict that. It's from Galatians 2:11-16, where Paul rebukes Peter for withdrawing from the Gentiles. "If Peter was like the first Pope," I asked my mom, "how could Paul argue with him?" I'll never forget her answer: "The Bible doesn't say anything about a Pope. Jesus is the supreme head of the church, He sends the Holy Ghost to lead and guide us." I was about 8 or 9 then, so I didn't fully get it, but I said "oh ok," and let a question mark sit in my little brain. When my parents split, going to church became less and less frequent for me, and then when my mom took off, both church attendance and reading the Bible became non-existent for many years. When God caused me to begin re-exploring the Scriptures as a young adult, he also led me to start looking more into the history of Christianity, and in particular the Catholic tradition that I was taught early in life. I was pretty amazed to learn that the office of the Pope as supreme bishop didn't develop until long after the Apostles had all died, the "apostolic succession" from Peter that I had been taught in Sunday school could only be traced back to the 300's AD at the earliest; and that the Roman Catholic Church had actually separated itself from the Eastern/Greek Orthodox church. OK, so what's the point? Well, I've also recently learned something else which I feel connects to this post. As far as I know, there are only 2 Greek words in the New Testament that even come close to our English word 'church.' One of them is 'Ekklesia', meaning "the called out/assembled ones." The "church" is all those who Christ has "called out" unto Himself. The other is 'Kuriakon', meaning "The Lord's/Pertaining to the Lord." It was a word used by a servant of his devotion to his master. The early believers expressed a dedication and commitment to an unseen master, which caused the world to give them a name - 'Kuriakon,' The Lord's. That word has been changed to 'Kirk' in Scotland, 'Kirche' in German, 'Churche' in Olde English (pronounced with a hard 'k' sound like character), and finally the English "church." Now, while I am certainly no authority on either Quaker or Catholic thinking, I am the world's GREATEST authority on my own opinion. And in that, both of these words and their definitions fit in better to the Quaker view as listed above than the Catholic view. That's not to say that there is no one in the Catholic church who belong to the Lord and are a part of the called out ones (in fact, history as well as my own experience tells me that there surely are). But as far as the question of "what makes a church?" the 2nd description above seems to be more in line with Scripture. "because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God."(Romans 8:14 NIV) “Jesus healed 2 men of blindness, one by touching his eyes, and another by spitting in the dirt and applying the dirt to his eyes. If that happened in our day, it would start 2 denominations – the mudites and the anti-mudites.” – Ravi Zacharias.
I was raised in the Catholic church, yet my mother did not agree with all of their traditions, and taught me to listen to Scripture in the event that I saw any contrast between it and Catholic dogma. For example, in Sunday school as a kid, I remember being told that Jesus Himself founded the Catholic church, formed the church hierarchy, and appointed Peter as the supreme head of the church (the first Pope) to lead and guide the church, followed by the other Apostles, then the disciples. I remember getting confused by a particular passage in Galatians which seemed to contradict that. It’s from Galatians 2:11-16, where Paul rebukes Peter for withdrawing from the Gentiles. “If Peter was like the first Pope,” I asked my mom, “how could Paul argue with him?” I’ll never forget her answer: “The Bible doesn’t say anything about a Pope. Jesus is the supreme head of the church, He sends the Holy Ghost to lead and guide us.” I was about 8 or 9 then, so I didn’t fully get it, but I said “oh ok,” and let a question mark sit in my little brain. When my parents split, going to church became less and less frequent for me, and then when my mom took off, both church attendance and reading the Bible became non-existent for many years. When God caused me to begin re-exploring the Scriptures as a young adult, he also led me to start looking more into the history of Christianity, and in particular the Catholic tradition that I was taught early in life.
I was pretty amazed to learn that the office of the Pope as supreme bishop didn’t develop until long after the Apostles had all died, the “apostolic succession” from Peter that I had been taught in Sunday school could only be traced back to the 300′s AD at the earliest; and that the Roman Catholic Church had actually separated itself from the Eastern/Greek Orthodox church.
OK, so what’s the point? Well, I’ve also recently learned something else which I feel connects to this post. As far as I know, there are only 2 Greek words in the New Testament that even come close to our English word ‘church.’ One of them is ‘Ekklesia’, meaning “the called out/assembled ones.” The “church” is all those who Christ has “called out” unto Himself. The other is ‘Kuriakon’, meaning “The Lord’s/Pertaining to the Lord.” It was a word used by a servant of his devotion to his master. The early believers expressed a dedication and commitment to an unseen master, which caused the world to give them a name – ‘Kuriakon,’ The Lord’s. That word has been changed to ‘Kirk’ in Scotland, ‘Kirche’ in German, ‘Churche’ in Olde English (pronounced with a hard ‘k’ sound like character), and finally the English “church.”
Now, while I am certainly no authority on either Quaker or Catholic thinking, I am the world’s GREATEST authority on my own opinion. And in that, both of these words and their definitions fit in better to the Quaker view as listed above than the Catholic view. That’s not to say that there is no one in the Catholic church who belong to the Lord and are a part of the called out ones (in fact, history as well as my own experience tells me that there surely are). But as far as the question of “what makes a church?” the 2nd description above seems to be more in line with Scripture.
“because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.”(Romans 8:14 NIV)

]]> Comment on On Orientations and Sex by Colin http://www.oaks2b.com/2011/05/24/on-orientations/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Colin Wed, 25 May 2011 18:39:35 +0000 http://www.oaks2b.com/?p=61#comment-3 I enjoyed this portion: "This thinking applies to our sexual lives. As a central part of who we are in Christ, Christian ethics must apply to this area of life also. So, the issue become one of what is the good sexual life according to the biblical story? There is really not too much difficulty figuring this one out. God intends that sex be in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. It’s not a dating ritual. It’s not a party activity. It’s not something that friends do. It’s not something that you practice so as to be skilled for your eventual husband or wife. And so on. It’s an expression of love in marriage between a husband and a wife with the potential that children may be a result of that love. It’s an expression of the union of a husband and a wife to be one." But, can we bring it down to street level where the shoeleather touches the sidewalk? Being in Christ gives us a new life to live, but it doesn't magically wipe away the past. The blood of Christ can wash away the stain of sin, but the consequences still need to be dealt with. What I'm getting at is this: what does one do when they've already forfeited their sexual purity before receiving Christ? Agreeing with God that those actions were sinful seems to be a good first step. Following the words of Christ to the woman caught in sexual sin - "go and sin no more"(John 8:11) - seems to be a good principle to follow. But the remorse and regret do not go away so easily, which is ironic, because before coming to Christ - they weren't there at all! I think it is part of God's dealing with sin to make me wish I had a "reset" button when I don't, and make me have to deal with that. Anyways, the question I'm really building to in a roundabout way is this: What kind of effects can this have on intimacy? How does some one talk about that kind of a past with anyone who is a "potential spouse"? I take it it's best to leave those things in the past, but still be honest about them to avert any problems, but.......how? It seems to me to be the most difficult part. I enjoyed this portion:
“This thinking applies to our sexual lives. As a central part of who we are in Christ, Christian ethics must apply to this area of life also. So, the issue become one of what is the good sexual life according to the biblical story? There is really not too much difficulty figuring this one out. God intends that sex be in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. It’s not a dating ritual. It’s not a party activity. It’s not something that friends do. It’s not something that you practice so as to be skilled for your eventual husband or wife. And so on. It’s an expression of love in marriage between a husband and a wife with the potential that children may be a result of that love. It’s an expression of the union of a husband and a wife to be one.”

But, can we bring it down to street level where the shoeleather touches the sidewalk? Being in Christ gives us a new life to live, but it doesn’t magically wipe away the past. The blood of Christ can wash away the stain of sin, but the consequences still need to be dealt with. What I’m getting at is this: what does one do when they’ve already forfeited their sexual purity before receiving Christ? Agreeing with God that those actions were sinful seems to be a good first step. Following the words of Christ to the woman caught in sexual sin – “go and sin no more”(John 8:11) – seems to be a good principle to follow.

But the remorse and regret do not go away so easily, which is ironic, because before coming to Christ – they weren’t there at all! I think it is part of God’s dealing with sin to make me wish I had a “reset” button when I don’t, and make me have to deal with that. Anyways, the question I’m really building to in a roundabout way is this: What kind of effects can this have on intimacy? How does some one talk about that kind of a past with anyone who is a “potential spouse”? I take it it’s best to leave those things in the past, but still be honest about them to avert any problems, but…….how? It seems to me to be the most difficult part.

]]>