AletheiaRivers

No problem. I've been painting the house again. Busy busy busy. If it's not home improvement, it's yard work. The webpage I quoted on the few and the many is the first one that popped up when I googled the scripture. I don't know if I agree with what the author wrote or not, but you asked for "thoughts", so I googled and that is what I found. It made me go "hmmmm", but not "By jove, that's the absolute truth!" I googled the scripture not because I don't agree with you, but because I have NO EXPERIENCE with any of this outside of being a Jehovah's Witness. I KNOW how JW's interpret that scripture, but I don't agree with them. So, because I had no words of my own to offer, I did a web search. I just hope you are not being quiet because you feel that I am saying you are wrong or that I am being argumentative. I'm not. I've said in two or three posts now that I LIKE what you have to say. You make me think. You have broadened my horizons. I'm starting to get worried that my posts are not conveying the happy, conversational attitude that I want them to.

OK, I'm just clarifying ... a PULPIT and a LECTURN are the exact same thing? Does it depend upon the church?

Des, I'm sorry about the news. I can relate as my grandmother had Alzs for a couple years before she died. She lived with my family my entire life (we had an extended family living arrangement growing up), so I was up close and personal with her illness. I always thought we should have put her in a loving nursing home at the end. It would have been better for her to have nursing care and it would have been better for my parents sanity. As long as the nursing home is very reputable, I don't see a problem with it. I guess the trick is finding a good one. You are in my prayers as well.

<<<<< Waves as onmyway! Welcome to the board!

Since Des said something about "what about the pulpit being the lecturn" (which is what I thought a lecturn might be), I need to ask: What the heck is a lecturn? Regarding decision theology: since it is Wesleyan, does that make that theology part of Episcopal and Methodist doctrine too? Did they have it once and end up leaving it behind?

I found an interesting take on "many are called but few are chosen" online. Here is what it had to say:

Cynthia, Yancey is wonderful. I'm so glad I wandered onto "Reaching for the Invisible God" at B&N instead of "Stealing Jesus". My husband just finished it and is moving on to "Grace".

Darby, First off "wander away" along any topic lines in this thread that you want. I really didn't intend the thread to have a definite topic, although discussing "greater things" could be very encouraging and fun. Reg "Agnes' Birthday", I will look it up and read it straight away. I'm gonna have to hurry and read my Philip Yancey books so that I can go and get some Campolo books. LOL! My library, I swear it is HUGE! There is another story from the websight that had the Campolo study that I want to share as well. I'll excerpt it later.

I'm starting to wander away from some "esoteric" views towards Jesus purpose or meaning and perhaps wandering towards some that are more "Orthodox" or traditional in nature. This may change. Time will tell. That doesn't make me Orthodox by any stretch. I'm sure I would still be branded a heretic by many.

I asked mostly because I was taught as a JW something very different from the common understanding of soul and spirit that most Christians have, but perhaps was closer to what the early Hebrews believed? In JW theology the body of man was combined with the animating force of God (breath of life or spirit) to create a living person (soul). Basically body + breath = living soul. In JW theology there is no immortal anything. Nothing that survives death. They hope in a resurrection to earth. When I left JW's, I automatically (in knee jerk fashion) hopped on board the "pre-existence" train. I believed that humans have an immortal soul or spirit (it's frustrating that those words are interchanged when they mean such different things) that existed prior to being made corporeal on this earth and that after death, we go "back". I developed the attitude that we are on "Earth School" to learn corporeal lessons, perhaps with reincarnation happening until we learn all our lessons. Now I've come back around to the idea that perhaps we DIDN'T have a pre-existence. The Herbrew scriptures don't seem to teach that we do. I think the idea that we incarnate just to "learn" is illogical as well. However, I haven't discarded the idea that we might have an afterlife. Perhaps something happens at death, not a pre-existent immortal soul leaving the body, but perhaps we are changed into something else? The Christian scriptures seem to allow that that is the case or hope. I'm not saying that the Christian message is heaven salvation oriented. I don't believe that. I believe that "salvation" is about TODAY. It's about now. But perhaps it's also MORE than about NOW. Perhaps it's both. Some Christian theologies teach that this earth is just a way station. That it's all about heaven. I don't believe that. However, other Christian theologies seem to be going in the extreme opposite direction and saying it's ONLY about now. I think this is unfortunate, because I don't believe that either. I really appreciate your sharing your thoughts. You've helped me think along lines I might not have on my own.

I imagine that the first church I'll go to, when I get around to it , will be Episcopalian. However, church shopping is not why I'm asking these questions. Here's another question: What's "Decision Theology"? I can google it. I just wondered if anyone here knows off the top of their head?

Make sense? Definitely! I still have a few intolerance issues with some "fundy" attitudes, but I'm working on it. I used to have many more, but as I've branched out in my reading I'm learning to appreciate and even agree with many points of view that could be considered conservative. Will I ever *like* the intolerance shown by many on the religious right towards those that aren't. Nope. But I can take a stand without returning evil for evil.

LOL Cynthia. I sure as heck don't buy in to media definitions. There is however, a difference between Evangelicals (with a capital E) and evangelicals (with a little e). When I referenced Evangelicals it was the capital E kind, but still wasn't meant in a disparaging way. Some of my favorite authors consider themselves Evangelical with a capital E. I asked the "end times" question because from reading over at beliefnet, the "traditional" Christians don't really worry about this or discuss this (which I like), but the "born again/Evangelical" Christians do have it as a major part of their doctrine (the rapture, pre, post, and amillenial, etc etc etc). This is all from an academic, intellectual standpoint. I grew up never hearing words (in theological context) like Trinity, rapture, evangelical, fundamental, TULIP, Wesleyan, Calvin, pre-trib/post-trib, bulletin, hymnal, traditional, deterministic, preterist, orthodox, conservative, liberal, liturgical, mystical ... and about a 1000 other words or phrases that I can't think of right now. I read books and they use words like they think EVERY Christian should know what they mean and my guess is that most do. But not born and raised Mormons or JW's man. We're deprived. I'm not looking for a church. When I'm ready to go, I'll pick one and go. Right now I'm happy in my garden.

Lilly, I'm curious as to how you define spirit, soul and body. Are they seperate? Are they the same thing? Do you define them based on the original Hebrew and Greek usages? Whats the word ... etymology? (spelling?) Do you use them in an "original" sense (your own meaning and usage) or did you come to an understanding in the way you use them from some where else? LOL! Sorry, many questions.

I heard the term "Bulletin" for the first time yesterday in reference to Lutheran liturgy and worship. What the heck is a bulletin?

Here is something from McLaren's book "Generous Orthodoxy". It made me smile. "Every denomination is liturgical. Some just don't know it because their liturgies aren't written down. For example, a seemingly free-form Pentecostal revival actually has a certain expected rythm to which some deviations are perhaps allowed, but others are not. "If you've been to a lot of Protestant meetings that claim to be nonliturgical, eschewing written prayers for "heartfelt" (ie spontaneous) ones, you soon begin to realize (pardon my cynicism) 'The Lord, Father-God, is just so good, Father-God, and it's just so great just to praise his mighty and wonderful name, Father-God, glory, hallelujah, and we're just so blessed just to be here, Father-God, hallelujah, just rejoicing in his holy presence, hallelujah, and if I just hear the word just one more time, and if I just hear just one more religious cliche pasted to others in a long cliche train, I'm going to ruin this whole so-called spontaneous, heartfelt experience by screaming!' "To have some gifted people (like the Anglicans' Thomas Cranmer or the many gifted Catholic liturgists) save us from our habitual "justs" and "spontaneous" cliches with well-chosen words, well-crafted sentences and well-thought-out paragraphs is a great gift of liturgy.

Here two quotes about the Bible from bnet I really liked: "The Bible is the cradle that holds Christ. That "cradle" includes written collections of earlier oral folktales of prehistory; court documents; poetry; polemics; allegory; crafted historical narrative; pastoral letter. Parts of the Bible are indeed historically factual; other parts are folkloric, or metaphorical. (Scholars use the same techniques to ascertain which are which that they would use to study any other ancient documents.) Truth is not synonymous with factuality. The Book of Jonah, for instance, is a beautiful little story of God's grace and inclusivity that speaks a truth about God whether one reads it as a series of historical events or as a parable." --- and --- "In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul was defending his ministry to some people in Corinth who questioned his authority. Paul says that you can tell his authority from the power in his words. "For we do not proclaim ourselves; we proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake." (2 Corinthians 4:5) That is, he isn’t claiming that the Corinthians should have faith in him. He is claiming that they should have faith in Christ. They should listen to what he’s saying because of the effect Christ has in their lives. "For it is the God who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." (2 Co. 4:6) That is, he doesn’t want them to believe his message. He wants them to believe what God is revealing through his message. He goes on to say, "But we have this treasure in clay jars, so that it may be made clear that this extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us." (2 Co. 4:7) That is, they shouldn’t look at Paul to see how perfect or blessed Paul is as a sign of their assurance. Paul isn’t the assurance, God is. This is how I see the Bible. The Bible is a clay jar that contains the treasure of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To put it another way (borrowing from a well-known theologian), the Bible is like the manger in which the Christ child is laid. Some of the boards might be warped. Some of the nails might be bent. But the greatest treasure we'll ever find is contained therein. God's contribution to the Bible isn't the words, it's the Word. "

Are ELCA Lutherans Calvinist?

Which was exactly why I shared the story from Campolo: because he is a conservative.

"Doing Greater Things" "There’s a wonderful passage that has intrigued me; I’m sure it has raised questions in your mind. It’s in the 14th chapter of John, the 12th verse, where Jesus says to his disciples: "The work that I do, ye shall do," and then he adds this, "and greater works than these shall you do, because I go unto my Father." "I remember reading that as a boy and asking the very serious question: Why is it that we can’t do what Jesus did? The works that Jesus did were amazing. He walked on water, he healed the blind, he made the lame to walk, he even raised up the dead. If Jesus was for real in his statement, then we should be able to do the things that Jesus did. And listen to this: greater works -- greater works! -- we should be able to do because he has gone to be with the father. (snip) "When I asked my pastor about that when I was a young boy he said it’s because we don’t have enough faith. That didn’t quite wash with me because Jesus doesn’t say you might do it if you have enough faith. He says, you will do it. I think that the problem is this, that we are so impressed with the power of God that we fail to see that the miracles are not about his power but about his love. What Jesus did he did not so much to demonstrate his power but to express his love. How many times does he perform a miracle and say to the people who benefit: don’t tell anybody, keep it quiet; I don’t want people to get the wrong idea. (snip) "This is what the gospel’s about. It’s about love. We can’t duplicate the power of Jesus. I mean we can’t walk on water. I don’t have the ability to raise up people from the dead, neither do you. But this we do have, the opportunity to express the love of Jesus. and when it comes to the bottom line, Jesus was more committed to expressing love than showing off his power. "I was in Haiti. I checked on our missionary work there. We run 75 small schools back in the hills of Haiti. I came to the little Holiday Inn where I always stay and shower and clean up before I board the plane to go home. I left the taxi and was walking to the entrance of the Holiday Inn when I was intercepted by three girls. I call them girls because the oldest could not have been more than 15. And the one in the middle said, "Mister, for $10 I’ll do anything you want me to do. I’ll do it all night long. Do you know what I mean?" "I did know what she meant. I turned to the next one and I said, "What about you, could I have you for $10?" "She said yes. I asked the same of the third girl. She tried to mask her contempt for me with a smile but it’s hard to look sexy when your 15 and hungry. I said, "I’m in room 210, you be up there in just 10 minutes. I have $30 and I’m going to pay for all 3 of you to be with me all night long." "I rushed up to the room, called down to the concierge desk and I said I want every Walt Disney video that you’ve got in stock. I called down to the restaurant and said, do you still make banana splits in this town, because if you do I want banana splits with extra ice cream, extra everything. I want them delicious, I want them huge, I want four of them! "The little girls came and the ice cream came and the videos came and we sat at the edge of the bed and we watched the videos and laughed until about one in the morning. That’s when the last of them fell asleep across the bed. And as I saw those little girls stretched out asleep on the bed, I thought to myself, nothing’s changed, nothing’s changed. Tomorrow they will be back on the streets selling their little bodies to dirty, filthy johns because there will always be dirty, filthy johns who for a few dollars will destroy little girls. Nothing’s changed. I didn’t know enough Creole to tell them about the salvation story, but the word of the spirit said this: but for one night, for one night you let them be little girls again. "I know what you’re going to say: "You’re not going to compare that with Jesus walking on water." No, I’m not, for very obvious reasons. If Jesus was to make a decision which is the greater work, walking on water or giving one night of childhood back to 3 little girls who had it robbed from them -- giving one night of joy to 3 little girls that armies had marched over -- which do you think Jesus would consider the greater work, walking on water or ministering to those 3 little girls. "And Jesus said, "The work that I do, Ye shall do and greater works than these shall Ye do because I go unto my Father." I can’t replicate the power acts of God in Jesus Christ, but every time I perform an act of love in his name, I am imitating Jesus and he is saying, "Well done thou good and faithful servant." Tony Campolo, Evangelist :-)

Here is a statement from beliefnet that has me a bit confused. I'm probably not understanding it is my guess. How would you guys interpret this statement: "It's the Holy Spirit that's created their saving faith...not their own cleverness or zealousness or willpower."

Thanks guys (so far, as I hope more chime in). I've actually been to beliefnet BroRog, which is what prompted me to decide to ask questions here. What I'm wondering are some of the differences as to what might make someone decide to be a Lutheran instead of an Episcopalian. Or Presbyterian instead of Methodist. My questions are basically academic. So so far I understand (in GENERAL): Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics and Methodists perform infant baptism. Do Presbyterians? Catholics, Lutherans and Episcopalians have Communion at each service. Methodists and Presbyterians once a month. Lutherans have 2 sacraments. Catholics have 7 sacraments. What about Episcopalians, Methodists and Presbyterians? Any at all? Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists ordain women. Do Presbyterians or Orthodox? Catholics and Episcopalians have a "top down" organizational structure. Prebyterians are congregationalist. What about Lutherans, Methodists or Orthodox? Is the UCC Methodist? I know Evangelical Christians are into endtimes stuff and have different views on the tribulation and rapture, etc. Catholics seem to be concerned with the "end of days" stuff too. Are the other traditional groups focused on this aspect of theology as well? I'm asking out of basic curiousity of doctrinal or traditional differences (like the creeds) between these groups. Thought it might be a fun thread. This is not born out of an "us versus them" attitude that I have. I'm just learning.

Cool! Thank you back!

Recently I was educated that Lutherans have liturgy and Eucharist in their services (thank you Beach and Curly). Seems I was equating mainline Protestantism with fundamental/legalistic and Evangelical Protestantism. (That's what you get being raised basically JW and LDS = No theological education. ) Growing up, I never knew that any faith outside of Catholicism had liturgy or Communion or the Trinity, etc ... I always assumed that Lutherans or Methodists were like JW's or Evangelicals or Baptists. So anyway, in reading over at beliefnet on the Traditional Christianity boards, I learned a bit about Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics and Orthodox Christians and how they all fit (sorta) into a category called "Traditional" (as opposed to Evangelical/Fundemental). I understand that Methodists and Presbyterians fit in here as well. Can anybody nutshell the basic differences between them? I'd ask over there, but I know you guys better. I know it's a huge question, but can anybody help? Thanks a bunch!

How about a forum (in the General area of the board) called something like "Introductions"? In the forum could be two threads called: 1) Brief introductions 2) In depth stories And perhaps it could be made so that no users can create any new intro thread in that forum, that way we wouldn't have hundreds of threads entitled "Hi, I'm new..." but just those two basic threads. Just a thought.