Wiki: Word of Faith forum

[God_Owned]

This is certainly a technicality and not an essential issue, and though I have not decided to change my icon from ND yet, I do make this suggestion:

"coequal." That kind of confuses things. I have great respect for Kenneth E. Hagin and the work he did for our Lord, along with the ministry he began by the power of God known as "Rhema."

I understand that the statement is actually meaning, of the same essence - that they are thus equal in that sense of the terminology. However, someone might read it and see a contradiction in saying "coequal" and then immediately saying the Father is greatest - which is true. Both statements are true if understood properly, that coequal is meaning of the same essence, not of the same authority. We all know the Father is the Most High and his will is done, even by his Son.

So that in essence they are of the same and equal, but in position they are not. Am I making sense? Do you see where someone could stumble on that point just because it could be worded in English better?

Just trying to serve - it doesn't matter to me what you guys decide, but I am considering an icon change.

David

I agree with you and I do understand. The Bible doesn't say coequal - John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.:wave:

[God_Owned]

To address any issues with potential oneness compliance, what if we were to add this (additions in blue)Our God is one, and is manifested in three separate and distinct Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), being coequal, commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word flesh-covered, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16; John 15:26).
In the above, it would be abundantly clear that we believe in the Trinity, and that oneness doctrine has no place in WoF.


I don't believe that "coequal" is incorrect for previously stated reasons. DP has it right, that we should say something like of the same spiritual essence/one in the Spirit...:wave:

[God_Owned]

I made a couple of changes, which I think are for the better. See if you guy like it.

Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word flesh-covered, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16; John 15:26).

[God_Owned]

Back to issues with the Trinity, though...


You know, it would be so much easier to just start off a SoF stating that we hold to the Nicene Creed (which will take care of most of these issues) then just list WoF distinctives.

Nice try Rick, but WOFers hold to the Word and as such haven't any need have no mention of the Nicene creed. http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[LeadWorship]

Sorry, continue on with the trinity issue.

However, then I disagree that to be baptized in the Holy Spirit you must first prove it by tongues. That's just funny. So to say, if the late Brother Hagin had laid hands upon me to recieve the Baptism of the Spirit, and I did not recieve my tongue, then I was not actually baptised because... well.. I didn't speak/pray in a tongue.

That limits God, and my God has no limits. This was supposed to be a discussion about foundational principles, yeah? I can't believe I'm the only one here who doesn't think you are only baptised in the Spirit if you have the gift of tongues!

.. but carry on with the trinity topic. I'll wait a few days to pursue this one.

[God_Owned]

Sorry, continue on with the trinity issue.

However, then I disagree that to be baptized in the Holy Spirit you must first prove it by tongues. That's just funny. So to say, if the late Brother Hagin had laid hands upon me to recieve the Baptism of the Spirit, and I did not recieve my tongue, then I was not actually baptised because... well.. I didn't speak/pray in a tongue.

That limits God, and my God has no limits. This was supposed to be a discussion about foundational
principles, yeah? I can't believe I'm the only one here who doesn't think you are only baptised in the Spirit if you have the gift of tongues!

.. but carry on with the trinity topic. I'll wait a few days to pursue this one.

Received/baptized, you have the gift of tongues, whether you choose to use it or not use it is your choice.:wave:

[DavidPresently]

First on the way he better worded the Trinity faith statement, and also about baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I agree that if you've been baptized of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8, 2, etc) then you have the ability to pray in the spirit, which is the "gift" God_Owned is speaking of - not to be confused with the gift of different kinds of tongues for the assembly requiring interpretation to the hearers. That gift everyone doesn't have who is empowered - but praying in the spirit is beneficial to all, and it comes with the package when the Holy Spirit comes UPON us to EMPOWER US.

Those who haven't experienced such but are born of the Spirit. still have the Spirit within, even the earnest. But, you'll know the difference when the Spirit has come UPON you to empower for service, and you have the valuable upbuilding tool of praying in the spirit as the Holy Spirit gives utterance. What a blessing along with a blessing! It is essentially a DOUBLE BLESSING! One helps you help others, and the second blessing in the package helps you, to build up, which still can help you help others - what an awesome God we serve!! HalleluYah!

Okay - got excited - back to the subject at hand in this thread...

[Father Rick]

Nice try Rick, but WOFers hold to the Word and as such haven't any need have no mention of the Nicene creed. http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon13.gif
In case you never noticed, every single point of the Nicene Creed is taken straight from Scripture. Erwin even had the scriptures linked to each phrase when that was incorporated in the CF rules.

You may not (and probably don't) realize it, but the SoF as it stands now actually contains much of "man's interpretation"... based on scripture, yes, but with a lot of added stuff-- whereas every phrase of the NC was based straight on scripture.



Another question... many of you may not be aware, but the statement that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (as opposed to just from the Father) was what started the RCC as a separate church when they unilaterally chose to make the decision to add that in without Scripture or Church Council-- just their own decision. It's one of those things that most Western Christians just take for granted without actually looking into it, since Western Christianity (even the Protestant Reformation) was a break from and was heavily influenced by the RCC. In the Eastern Churches, this was never held as being true.

If you look at the 2 scriptures posted on the SoF as support for that, you will see that the first one ONLY says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father... and the second one states that Jesus would send the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Neither of them say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son (and putting such in actually supports the RC view that they have the authority to make such changes to theology).

[probinson]

......

I'm curious.....

Throughout this process, will you agree on anything that the entire remainder of the participating Word of Faith membership agrees on?

If not, doesn't that tell you something?

I'm just curious, because so far, you've objected to nearly everything that the rest of the participating Word of Faith members has come to a consensus on.

I mean, it's one thing to have different points of view and voice them. It's quite another to disagree on everything, right down to the agreed upon baseline for our statement of faith, which has been accepted the world over for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Word of Faith believers for many years.

[pdudgeon]

Father Rick, this is not the AoG wiki, this is not the Nicean creed wiki, this is not the RCC wiki, and this is not the place for denominational debates.

this is the WOF wiki.

[God_Owned]

Pros:

1. This is WOFers our chance to be an autonomous Forum, which we always wanted. We will no longer be under SF control or subject to their staff, some of which are hostile to WOF.:thumbsup:

2. We will be listed as congregational forum which will make us easier to find, because we will be listed as a main heading.:thumbsup:

3. Separating the Word of Faith forum fro SF to give us own congregational forum would give Word of Faith posters more control over the WOF forum.:thumbsup:

4. WOFers are more likely to be able to act as WOFers without being cited for flaming or some other infraction given by non-WOFer for telling someone the truth. :thumbsup:

5. We would no longer be under the control of or beholding to SF or other Sub-Forums associated with SF Forum like "Charismatic - Non-Word of Faith." People will be able to find our forum without having to necessarily the Non-Word-of-Faith Sub Forum title which will just serves to detract from the WOF Forum and to denigrate WOFers.:thumbsup:

6. WOFers will have more confidence in the Forum and MODs who have to make decisions, some of which may still be unpopular but hopefully will not be made out of ignorance of what being WOF is.:thumbsup:

7. WOFers will have a greater chance of effecting the complexion of the SuprerMod staff, having at least one SuperMod representing WOF on the Super Mod team for congregational areas. :thumbsup:

Cons: None:tutu:

[God_Owned]

Father Rick, this is not the AoG wiki, this is not the Nicean creed wiki, this is not the RCC wiki, and this is not the place for denominational debates.

this is the WOF wiki.

It isn't the Old Catholic Wiki either. Maybe he isn't interested in helping us establsh a WOF Forum with valid, understandable and workable WOF rules.:confused:

[probinson]

Pros:
Cons:
For a list of the pros and cons, considerations, point/counterpoint, and your opportunity to vote on whether we should pursue moving the WoF forum, please see this thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t5709473-should-the-wof-forum-be-made-a-congregational-forum-independent-from-sf.html);

[DavidPresently]

I'm not agreeing with everything, but Father Rick has a point about the wording of some of the statements of belief. They do sometimes expound on the Scriptures rather than just state exactly what the Scriptures say about it.

The issue of hell and punishment is one. The way the belief is worded does not come from the Scriptures, and technically cannot be backed up by any reference from the Scriptures. The idea can be, if stated with scriptural terminology, rather than the added traditional terminology (Christianese).

I agree with the restoration movement that started being called WoF, and one of the ministers I've held dearest is Kenneth E. Hagin - respecting his ministry a lot. However, even WE who have received Pentecostal and WoF restoration of truth, can still many times cling to old traditions that came from the corrupted RCC, and fight for them as if they are "truth."

But, our goal should be to get back to how the church was intended to be and the course it originally started out on, before veering off course in areas.

That said, it should be that we can both examine our wording of scriptural things so as to be clear, but not add to the Scriptures on it, and more specifically define WoF as differed from mainline Pentecostal and such - which hasn't started here yet.

I could be mistaken, but I think FR was just suggesting we work on the wording of statements of belief to match the Scriptures exactly. That is never bad advice. None of us who have been in WoF are infallible, nor immune from having received traditions of religion.

If you have any questions concerning what I mean, let me know.

David

[Father Rick]

I'm curious.....

Throughout this process, will you agree on anything that the entire remainder of the participating Word of Faith membership agrees on?

If not, doesn't that tell you something?

I'm just curious, because so far, you've objected to nearly everything that the rest of the participating Word of Faith members has come to a consensus on.

I mean, it's one thing to have different points of view and voice them. It's quite another to disagree on everything, right down to the agreed upon baseline for our statement of faith, which has been accepted the world over for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Word of Faith believers for many years.
As I said previously, I have had significant experience in writing/developing such documents. As such, one of the things I've learned is that a rush to get something done almost always results in problems down the road. Rather, when one goes through and carefully examines each point to see what the "loopholes" are, you wind up with a much better result.

So far, the members here have not even been able to agree on the first point of the Rhema SoF... wanting to change the way in which it refers to the Trinity. That debate was started without me even mentioning any questions. And the users haven't even started working through the rest of it-- although there have already been concerns raised (by someone other than me) on tongues as the initial evidence.

So apparently, the Rhema SoF has areas that need work/improvement. I've also pointed out that there are hundreds of thousands of WoF'ers who are not, and never were, part of the Rhema camp (such as those part of the Association of Faith Churches and Ministries with Jim Kaseman)... so, while there may be much merit to the Rhema SoF, and it may be agreed upon by a major camp of WoF, it clearly can't speak of WoF as a whole. (otherwise, there would be no need to "improve" it, which most every poster here has made suggestion to do).


Father Rick, this is not the AoG wiki, this is not the Nicean creed wiki, this is not the RCC wiki, and this is not the place for denominational debates.

this is the WOF wiki.You're right... this is the WoF WIKI. Wiki is supposed to be an unbiased, objective representation of the subject. I don't think anyone here would dare say that the Rhema SoF is infallible. As such, since we are seeking to develop a SoF that truly represents WoF.... and acknowledging that the current SoF is imperfect/can be improved, then to ignore how other Christians have worked through these issues is simply arrogance.

Why re-invent the wheel? If other Christians have worked through the issue and found a solution which we can agree with (even if we disagree with them on other issues), then why re-work that same issue?

Everyone here in WoF agrees with the Nicene Creed... since there's noone new here since the rules changed. Since it already handles issues such as the Trinity, the virgin birth, Christ's death and resurrection, etc., then why do back and re-do all that work?

WoF clearly agrees with the rest of Christianity, particularly SF-P/C'ers on far more than we disagree. In fact, if one really boils it down to the basics of disagreement, it would be simply that we believe we have access to, and are growing into, the fullness of Christ's atoning work here in this temporal realm, not just after we die. (In other words, the work is already done, we just have to enter into what He has already done for us.)


In the meantime, the Rhema SoF doesn't address a number of issues that I think every WoF poster here would consider important truths. For instance, it doesn't address the virgin birth, or the fact that Christ actually became man so that he could be our sacrifice (as opposed to just looking like a man). Also, the wording actually gives place to the existence of multiple gods (like the Hindu views) only saying that "our God" is _______. Hinduism teaches there are many gods, but then a person will choose which god is "their god". It's not so much a matter of me disagreeing with what is IN the Rhema SoF, as seeing it is very inadequate and doesn't actually cover some of the very important basics.

And while it may be unlikely... as the SoF stands right now, a person who is an evolutionist, believes that Jesus was not born of a virgin, believes that Jesus was not sinless and believes that there are many gods, but has chosen to follow the God of the Bible as one of many alternatives could be classified as WoF. (Or, more likely, could hold to any one of the above and be classified as WoF.)

Anyone else understand why that could be a problem?

[probinson]

So far, the members here have not even been able to agree on the first point of the Rhema SoF... wanting to change the way in which it refers to the Trinity. That debate was started without me even mentioning any questions.
It really hasn't been much of a "debate". What we have had are Word of Faith members making clarifications, changing a word here or there to improve the clarity. Not members suggesting we toss the whole thing out the window, like you have done. There's a big difference.

No one is saying that the SoF is infallible, but you're the only one that has had a problem with using it as a foundational baseline.

[pdudgeon]

It really hasn't been much of a "debate". What we have had are Word of Faith members making clarifications, changing a word here or there to improve the clarity. Not members suggesting we toss the whole thing out the window, like you have done. There's a big difference.

No one is saying that the SoF is infallible, but you're the only one that has had a problem with using it as a foundational baseline.

agreed. and since that has been established, perhaps the rest of us can get on with our wiki. that doesn't mean that anyone who is WOF can't add in their opinions, but it does mean that we should have the goal in mind of compleating this wiki, and that we should not be actively detered from doing so.

that said, this is the latest suggested change.
Our God is one, manifested in three separate, distinct, eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word flesh-covered, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16; John 15:26).


going twice.......

and i would suggest that if we agree on the wording of this section that we put this up in the WOF forum on a 3 day poll where the votes are recorded and can be viewed. once the poll closes we proceed according to the directions obtained--either for, against, or needs more work.

let's work towards that goal first before proceeding with any other topic.

[Father Rick]

agreed. and since that has been established, perhaps the rest of us can get on with our wiki. that doesn't mean that anyone who is WOF can't add in their opinions, but it does mean that we should have the goal in mind of compleating this wiki, and that we should not be actively detered from doing so.

that said, this is the latest suggested change.


going twice.......

and i would suggest that if we agree on the wording of this section that we put this up in the WOF forum on a 3 day poll where the votes are recorded and can be viewed. once the poll closes we proceed according to the directions obtained--either for, against, or needs more work.

let's work towards that goal first before proceeding with any other topic.
Do you intend for posters to be able to be interpret it that Jesus did not become a man? Or that Jesus was half man/half God? Or that Jesus was God, wrapped up in flesh-- but that the material portion of Him wasn't God, only the spiritual portion?

All three of those interpretations are possible with the current wording.

A change from "The Son is the Word flesh-covered" to "The Son is the Word become flesh" would be both more scriptural and would at least help with that issue.

[God_Owned]

Point: This is WOFers our chance to be an autonomous Forum. We will no longer be under SF control or subject to their staff, some of which are hostile to WOF.

Probinsion's Counterpoint: "One could argue that the WoF forum is not currently "under" SF control. The WoF membership has been granted the ability to create their own rules and regulations for governance of the WoF forum. The staff, which has yet to be elected, would be required to uphold the rules and regulations that the WoF membership agreed upon."

My Counterpoint to Proibinson's Counterpoint: To argue that SF is under SF control is stupid. We will create our rules but will still be subject to the oversight of SF which is exactly what we don't need. This is what has led to many of the problems we have today. The SF and Super Mode Staff will uphold the CF rules, then what ever rules they have and then WOF rules. To think or state otherwise is to promote a lie.
_________________________

Point: We will be listed as congregational forum which will make us easier to find, because we will be listed as a main heading.
While it is true that by being listed as a main congregation, we would show up on the congregational page as a main heading, many have found us because of our current position. Many people who have WoF beliefs don't know that is what it is called, and by coming to the "Spirit-Filled" forum, a term with which WoF people identify, they come to find us.


Probinsion's Counterpoint: "While it is true that by being listed as a main congregation, we would show up on the congregational page as a main heading, many have found us because of our current position. Many people who have WoF beliefs don't know that is what it is called, and by coming to the "Spirit-Filled" forum, a term with which WoF people identify, they come to find us."

My Counterpoint to Proibinson's Counterpoint: This is a ridiculous argument and you have not data to back it up. People will more easily find us on the main page easier than buried in as a Sub Forum in some one else's congregation. ,,,just more of your fear based supposition intended to get your way.
_______________________________

Point: Separating the Word of Faith forum fro SF to give us own congregational forum would give Word of Faith posters more control over the WOF forum.


Probinsion's Counterpoint: "This may or may not be true. It is entirely possible that even as a sub-forum, we could staff the WoF forum with strictly WoF believers. Since this is all new, we can't definitively say at this time whether moving the forum would grant us more control or not."


My Counterpoint to Proibinson's Counterpoint: In other words you have no argument here, with qualifiers like "...may not be true...", "entirely possible..." "...we can't definitively say.." It is like you trying to promote the idea that when we are in doubt, we should listen to you. lol For you to promote the thought that we would more likely have less control than more control over our own Forum after being liberated from SF really shows me to what extent you will mislead in order to get your way. We will have more control and you know it.
_________________________

Point: WOFers are more likely to be able to act as WOFers without being cited for flaming or some other infraction given by non-WOFer for telling someone the truth.


Probinsion's Counterpoint: "No matter where the WoF forum is positioned, it will still be subject to the general rules and regulations of CF, which is where the flaming rule exists."

My Counterpoint to Proibinson's Counterpoint: Oh, and I just thought you said we could establish our own rules. Actually no one mentioned flaming, but since you did; The rule may exist in the CF rules, but the way it is enforced is dependent on the Forum Mods. The Enforcement of the flaming rule has be arbitrary and capricious aimed at those who Mods don't like or at someone who is stating a WOF belief that some find offensive. Good WoF Mods, our from under the oversight of the SF types could easily do a better job of enforcing the flaming rule only when it really needs to be enforced. Of course you know what I am saying is true, so why did you even bother make such a lame augment?
____________________________

Point: We would no longer be under the control of or beholding to SF or other Sub-Forums associated with SF Forum like "Charismatic - Non-Word of Faith." People will be able to find our forum without having to necessarily the Non-Word-of-Faith Sub Forum title which will just serves to detract from the WOF Forum and to denigrate WOFers.


Probinsion's Counterpoint: "It's arguable that we are not "under the control" of SF now. The WoF forum has always had debate specific rules, that applied only to the WoF forum, and with the development of the WoF Wiki, that trend will continue in allowing the WoF membership to create their own rules, completely separate from the Spirit-Filled rules. NOTHING contained in the SF rules would apply to the WoF forum."

My Counterpoint to Proibinson's Counterpoint: You could only argue that we aren't under the control of SF now if you have a flagrant disregard for the truth. WOF Forum Rules are subject to CF and SF rules. Once we are out from under SF, then we only have to contend with CF Rules as interpreted by WOF Mods hopefully under the supervision of a WOF SuperMod, not necessarily you. So you are saying that SF , as a Congregation, will have no rules which will apply to its sub-forums and will not try to influence our WOF sub-forum in anyway. If this is so, then they have no need for us to be under them and we have no need to be there.
_________________

Point: WOFers will have more confidence in the Forum and MODs who have to make decisions, some of which may still be unpopular but hopefully will not be made out of ignorance of what being WOF is.

Probinsion's Counterpoint: "This is a matter of opinion. Again, there is great potential that only WoF moderators will moderate the WoF forum where it is currently positioned."

My Counterpoint to Proibinson's Counterpoint: So what? They will be able to do a better job if they are out from under SF oversight.
_____________________



Point: WOFers will have a greater chance of effecting the complexion of the SuprerMod staff, having at least one SuperMod representing WOF on the Super Mod team for congregational areas.

Probinsion's Counterpoint: "This is likely not the case. It is my understanding that while the membership votes on moderators, it is the moderators that vote on super mods. This being the case, it would not matter where the WoF staff was positioned, because they would have the same voice regardless of where the forum was located."

My Counterpoint to Proibinson's Counterpoint: Again, you are being short sighted. I would rather have our super mod not being coequal to SF super mods, but independent from their influence. ..you know so they wouldn't have to compromise in order to achieve something.
_____________________-

Pete, you seem to care about you own agenda than you do the WOFers here. ...now who does that remind me of?

[God_Owned]

For a list of the pros and cons, considerations, point/counterpoint, and your opportunity to vote on whether we should pursue moving the WoF forum, please see this thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t5709473-should-the-wof-forum-be-made-a-congregational-forum-independent-from-sf.html);

I would appreciate it if you would leave my posts where I post them.

[probinson]

I would appreciate it if you would leave my posts where I post them.
I didn't move your post. I simply pointed people to the full discussion with a list of pros AND cons so that they could make an informed decision for themselves.

You claimed that there were no cons to moving the Word of Faith forum. I, and 4 others at this point, disagree with you, and so it's only fair to let people have all the information before deciding for themselves if the forum should move or not.

[God_Owned]

I didn't move your post. I simply pointed people to the full discussion with a list of pros AND cons so that they could make an informed decision for themselves.

You claimed that there were no cons to moving the Word of Faith forum. I, and 4 others at this point, disagree with you, and so it's only fair to let people have all the information before deciding for themselves if the forum should move or not.

The only cons to moving the WOF Forum out from under SF are figments of your "..could be...might be...should be...one could argue..." reasoning.

I say there are no Cons to getting out from under SF and stand I by it.

The only difference between you and me here is I am interested in what is best for all WOFers, not just me. :D

[God_Owned]

I didn't move your post. I simply pointed people to the full discussion with a list of pros AND cons so that they could make an informed decision for themselves.

You claimed that there were no cons to moving the Word of Faith forum. I, and 4 others at this point, disagree with you, and so it's only fair to let people have all the information before deciding for themselves if the forum should move or not.


Gee, 4 people out of a former field of what, 250? I think you can't see the elephant in your living room.:(

[probinson]

The only cons to moving the WOF Forum out from under SF are figments of your "..could be...might be...should be...one could argue..." reasoning.

I say there are no Cons to getting out from under SF and stand I by it.
I say there are cons and things to be thought about and considered, and I have posted them for people to consider before casting their vote.

People who post regularly in the SF forum should think about the potential unintended consequences of moving the WoF forum, and how it will affect them. I am one person that posts in SF frequently, and there are many others that do as well. Those are the ones that would be affected by the cons to a move like this.

[probinson]

Gee, 4 people out of a former field of what, 250? I think you can't see the elephant in your living room.:(
For those curious where the 250 figure comes from, it comes from the membership list of members holding the WoF icon.

Of those 250, less than 75 have 100 posts or more. A fair number of the others have only 1 post, or no posts at all.

Source (http://www.christianforums.com/memberlist.php?&field52=16&order=DESC&sort=posts&pp=20&ltr=)

The fact of the matter is, the WoF forum has never seen anywhere near 250 active members at one time. That number has always been somewhere in the ballpark of 20-30.

[God_Owned]

For those curious where the 250 figure comes from, it comes from the membership list of members holding the WoF icon.

Of those 250, less than 75 have 100 posts or more. A fair number of the others have only 1 post, or no posts at all.

...and I wonder why the immediate loss of interest.:confused:

Source (http://www.christianforums.com/memberlist.php?&field52=16&order=DESC&sort=posts&pp=20&ltr=)

The fact of the matter is, the WoF forum has never seen anywhere near 250 active members at one time. That number has always been somewhere in the ballpark of 20-30.

That would be a relvolving door of 20 to 30 and now you have what, 12? ..and maybe some of those are't really WOF.:confused:

The elephant, Pete, its the elephant.^_^

...the CF/SF Elephant.

[DavidPresently]

The statement of belief currently reads:

The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:13; 2 Peter 1:21).

I suggest the following,

2Ti 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, (17) that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.

And,

The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL is profitable, as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16.



It is entirely unscriptural to say that only the New Testament is our infallible guide for doctrine and practice. The New Testament is expounding on the foundation of the Old Testament. I know that many times the "Old Covenant" is related to the "Old Testament" as if that portion of the Scriptures and the covenant with ancient Israel as a nation are the same thing. That is not true. There are several covenants mentioned in the Old Testament, depending on the people or person.

Ancient Israel as a whole was placed in the old covenant with a veil because they asked for it. Look it up in the Scriptures, guys, for yourself. They begged Moses not to let God talk to them directly. So, due to their stubborn hearts and stiff necks, they got what they asked for - a covenant with a veil, and forced submission of the flesh to the Law.

Men like Moses, David, Samuel, Elijah, etc, had a personal covenant, in personal relationship, and all looked to Messiah who they knew, though not manifest in the flesh to make atonement yet. But, the knew by faith he had made atonement for them (from the foundations of the world). They were not like the majority of Israel who was uncircumcised in heart and in the old covenent.

There is great riches of revelation in the OT portion, including to establish WoF truth, for exercising our faith.

What is different in the NT is that our (Israel's) new covenant is clearly laid out, and established by the blood of the Lamb having already been shed on earth, manifestly. Thus, we could word the statement that the NT is our infallible guide to the conditions of the new covenant.

If you don't understand what clarification I'm offering for the statement, just ask questions.

David

Facts: The gospel is stated throughout the OT. The apostles and Messiah himself all preached from the OT, to preach the gospel. Just because Christians have become OT iliterate and lazy doesn't mean it is not all in there. It is. I could preach the gospel to you straight from Moses if you like, which is necessary if you ever expect to be able to be a witness back to the Jews who have missed it and been led astray by Talmudic Rabbinical Judaism - which is not what Moses gave.

The NC conditions are NOT found in the OT, however, though the gospel for it is. The conditions of the NC we are in is only clearly laid out in the NT by Jesus and the apostles and James.

[pdudgeon]

Do you intend for posters to be able to be interpret it that Jesus did not become a man? Or that Jesus was half man/half God? Or that Jesus was God, wrapped up in flesh-- but that the material portion of Him wasn't God, only the spiritual portion?

All three of those interpretations are possible with the current wording.

A change from "The Son is the Word flesh-covered" to "The Son is the Word become flesh" would be both more scriptural and would at least help with that issue.

lol, no, i would rather believe that our members are very familiar with John1:1-5,9-12,14-16. we could add those as biblical references if you like, as i think they explain exactly who Jesus was.

[God_Owned]

lol, no, i would rather believe that our members are very familiar with John1:1-5,9-12,14-16. we could add those as biblical references if you like, as i think they explain exactly who Jesus was.

I would go for, "...the Word was made flesh..."


John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh...

[DavidPresently]

I would go for, "...the Word was made flesh..."


John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh...

I agree. I prefer we just word things the way the Scriptures do, letting them speak for themselves.

So, I guess we aren't ready to move on about the Scriptures, as we are still on the trinity issue.

[probinson]

So then, with all changes incorporated, we have this (changes in red);
Our God is one, manifested in three eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (Deut. 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%206:4&version=9); Phil. 2:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%202:6;&version=9;)). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:28;&version=9;); John 16:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:28;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1;&version=9;); John 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:18;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Holy Spirit proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16;&version=9;); John 15:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26;&version=9;)).

[J4Jesus]

So then, with all changes incorporated, we have this (changes in red);Our God is one, manifested in three eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (Deut. 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%206:4&version=9); Phil. 2:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%202:6;&version=9;)). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:28;&version=9;); John 16:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:28;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1;&version=9;); John 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:18;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Holy Spirit proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16;&version=9;); John 15:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26;&version=9;)).


What happened overnight til now what we worked on a few days about the Godhead? This reads very different

[DavidPresently]

So then, with all changes incorporated, we have this (changes in red);Our God is one, manifested in three eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, (Deut. 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%206:4&version=9); Phil. 2:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%202:6;&version=9;)). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:28;&version=9;); John 16:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:28;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1;&version=9;); John 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:18;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Holy Spirit proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16;&version=9;); John 15:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26;&version=9;)).


That is hard to find any flaw in whatsoever - nice and tight (like water tight).

The only other thing is that

The Holy Spirit proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16;&version=9;); John 15:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26;&version=9;)).Is tighter if worded "The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of him (Jesus)."

The eternal part is redundant and not necessary.

Technically, there is no scriptural backing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son - as if the Son has rule over the Holy Spirit. He does have rule over all CREATION, but the Holy Spirit is not created. However, there is scriptural backing that the Son SENDS FORTH the promised Holy Spirit, who proceeds from his Father.

It just technically keeps the statement of belief in line with "the Father is the greatest," which we all agree is 100% true. Meaning he has absolute authority over both the Son and the Holy Spirit, and all others he gives authority over.

If the tighter version I've offered won't work for everyone for some reason - I'm okay with that - just a suggestion.

David

John 15:26 MKJV And when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me.

[probinson]

What happened overnight til now what we worked on a few days about the Godhead? This reads very different
I just copied what was in the wiki, and modified the words in red.

What is different?

[J4Jesus]

Sorry, continue on with the trinity issue.

However, then I disagree that to be baptized in the Holy Spirit you must first prove it by tongues. That's just funny. So to say, if the late Brother Hagin had laid hands upon me to recieve the Baptism of the Spirit, and I did not recieve my tongue, then I was not actually baptised because... well.. I didn't speak/pray in a tongue.

That limits God, and my God has no limits. This was supposed to be a discussion about foundational principles, yeah? I can't believe I'm the only one here who doesn't think you are only baptised in the Spirit if you have the gift of tongues!

.. but carry on with the trinity topic. I'll wait a few days to pursue this one.


Its not limiting God , its us receiving. The "GIFT" of tongues is not the same as speaking in tongues when you are baptized in the Holy Ghost. If you have recieved him then you can pray in tongues because He gives you the ability. But that is not the part we are working on right now.

[J4Jesus]

I just copied what was in the wiki, and modified the words in red.

What is different?

There's so much arguing in here since yesterday I couldn't find it. The part we edited about

""three distinct Persons .."

But this post below close enough along with the part you are inserting and adding saying

".....The Son is the Word made flesh,.." which I like. It is clearer

I made a couple of changes, which I think are for the better. See if you guy like it.

Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word flesh-covered, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16; John 15:26).

[probinson]

Yes, you are correct;

This would be it, with the change;
Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16; John 15:26).
To also incorporate DP's change, it would read as follows;
Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of him (Jesus). (John 14:16; John 15:26).

[J4Jesus]

Thats fine
They mean the same to me.

[pdudgeon]

To also incorporate DP's change, it would read as follows;
Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).


:thumbsup:

[God_Owned]

Yes, you are correct;








This would be it, with the change;Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16; John 15:26).


To also incorporate DP's change, it would read as follows;Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).







I agree more with the one which includes DP's changes but I would make one more deletion and addition;Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).


Rather than refering to a presumed common understanding, I would ratther just stick with the Word.




I think we should dlte the phrase"commonly referred to as the Trinity " and add "and these three are one."Foundational verse: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.So it would read like this.We believe in the one true God. Our God is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one. (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6;1 John 5:7). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).

[J4Jesus]

God_Owned, you must not have read may posts awhile back. While I do like how the Bible states it, that could be a problem becuase of people who tell me the "three in One" is JESUS.

But if the others agree thats ok.

[God_Owned]

God_Owned, you must not have read may posts awhile back. While I do like how the Bible states it, that could be a problem becuase of people who tell me the "three in One" is JESUS.

But if the others agree thats ok.

I really don't make my suggestions based on what you believe, but what I believe to be correct, based on the Word. This is what we are all doing here.

I have no idea how you can say how what the Bible states is a problem just because some people are confused. Did you think you were ever going to get two words out that someone somewhere wouldn't get it?^_^

[J4Jesus]

I really don't make my suggestion based on what you believe, but what I believe to be correct based on the Word. This is what we are all doing here.

I have no idea how you can say, how the Bible staes it is a problem just because some people are cofused. Did you think you were ever going to get two words out that some one some where wouldn't get it?^_^
Its hard to even get two words in here with all this yaking going on ;)
That is not MY belief. Its so it won't be confused with "oneness" and that was why it was good to insert it. We have already been thru all this and it was changed in blue and now we're working on a different part of it.. Did you sleep since then and forget? LOL ^_^

They can say they believe this at stated but if you ask them to explain "three in one" they say the ONE is JESUS, and that He is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. .Thats not true.

[God_Owned]

Its hard to even get two words in here with all this yaking going on ;)
That is not MY belief. Its so it won't be confused with "oneness" and that was why it was good to insert it. We have already been thru all this and it was changed in blue and now we're working on a different part of it.. Did you sleep since then and forget? LOL ^_^

They can say they believe this at stated but if you ask them to explain "three in one" they say the ONE is JESUS, and that He is the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. .Thats not true.

This is a United Pentecostal belief, but I don't care how you articulate the ToF, someone won't get it just like they don't get the Bible. Instead of trying to steer around others misconception, and possible misconceptions, I prefer than we just make sure that we get it right.

We should overcome the whole issue by just saying that we believe that the whole Bible is the inerrant Word of God and we, as New Covenant Christians, live through grace by faith in its Word. Then we can do what we always do, argue about what we believe it means. lol

[DavidPresently]

This is a United Pentecostal belief, but I don't care how you articulate the ToF, someone won't get it just like they don't get the Bible. Instead of trying to steer around others misconception, and possible misconceptions, I prefer than we just make sure that we get it right.

We should overcome the whole issue by just saying that we believe that the whole Bible is the inerrant Word of God and we, as New Covenant Christians, live through grace by faith in its Word. Then we can do what we always do, argue about what we believe it means. lol

Good point.

The updates look good and I agree that it is more scriptural to stick with the and they are one statement,rather than use the Christianese term "trinity" which is not found in the Scriptures, though we all realize it is a term to describe the three being one. And not that I'm fully opposed to Christianese as I babble off in it myself sometimes. :D I'm working on that, to let no idle babble come out of my mouth, but that if I'm going to sound like I'm babbling, it should be in tongues. :P

[DavidPresently]

Its hard to even get two words in here with all this yaking going on ;)

Yakitiyakyakyak. Yak yak yak-yak, yakitiyak. ;) ............................. Don't talk back??

[God_Owned]

Good point.

The updates look good and I agree that it is more scriptural to stick with the and they are one statement,rather than use the Christianese term "trinity" which is not found in the Scriptures, though we all realize it is a term to describe the three being one. And not that I'm fully opposed to Christianese as I babble off in it myself sometimes. :D I'm working on that, to let no idle babble come out of my mouth, but that if I'm going to sound like I'm babbling, it should be in tongues. :P

Thank you for our agreement. I just put this on the Wiki edit thingy. :wave:

Our God is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one. (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6;1 John 5:7). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).

It is the same, except what I put into red. I think it reads pretty good.

[probinson]

I would like to make one request when editing the wiki article itself, and that's to make sure the links to the scriptures are not removed in the editing, and that the formatting remain consistent. I understand the different fonts, sizes and colors in the discussion to make it easy to see changes, additions and clarifications, but once we come to a consensus, that is when we should post the agreed upon statement in the wiki, sans special formatting.

I would also suggest that the wiki not be edited until a full consensus is reached on each point as we discuss it. This will make it easier to track the updates to the wiki.

I've updated the wiki with links to the scriptures concerned. The content was NOT changed in any way from what God_Owned posted above, only the formatting, and the links added.

So, it appears as though we are all in agreement on "The Godhead"?



Last call for input on "The Godhead", which now reads;Our God is manifested in three separate, distinct, eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one (Deut. 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%206:4&version=9); Phil. 2:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%202:6;&version=9;); 1 John 5:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:7;&version=9;)). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:28;&version=9;); John 16:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:28;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1;&version=9;); John 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:18;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus) (John 14:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16;&version=9;); John 15:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26;&version=9;)).

[J4Jesus]

Yakitiyakyakyak. Yak yak yak-yak, yakitiyak. ;) ............................. Don't talk back??


So DavidP
If you are getting involved with the process here does that mean you really believe in Word Of Faith? Or do you know?

But how can you know or be sure if you don't even know if you are in Ohio or Texas? ;) ^_^ (Just kidding!)

[J4Jesus]

Ok Pete

One down alot more to go . At this rate it will take awhile!:swoon:

[probinson]

Presuming that everyone is OK with the Godhead section, it looks like it's time to move on to what WE BELIEVE concering the scriptures.



This is what we started with;The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16;&version=9;); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;)).

Earlier in the thread, DavidPresently suggested something similar to the following;All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))I like DP's modifications, and I'm cool with that.

Thoughts?

[DavidPresently]

So DavidP
If you are getting involved with the process here does that mean you really believe in Word Of Faith? Or do you know?

But how can you know or be sure if you don't even know if you are in Ohio or Texas? ;) ^_^ (Just kidding!)

LOL.

Of course I believe in the WoF restoration. I practice such and teach it to others.

Well, see, I have a place to stay, and most of my "possessions" or at least half, in Dallas, Texas. Currently my family and I and 2 disciples who will be going to Texas with us to minister, are in Ohio - but going back to Dallas soon. I'm from the Cinci OH area. We are going into some new business in Dallas, and new ministry also - a start up.

You wouldn't be far off though to call me a nomad. That is what my mom calls me. I'm used to being "on the go" and moving from here to there to another there back to here then to there again, etc.

Next time you address me, please acknowledge my greatness, and then proceed to joke if you like. :cool:

:angel: I have no idea what that smile is up to...

[DavidPresently]

Earlier in the thread, DavidPresently suggested something similar to the following;All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))I like DP's modifications, and I'm cool with that.

Thoughts?

I like my modifications too - and propose we don't spend too much time on this next portion - I mean - we are in the 30's of pages...Not to be impatient...:holy:

Can I get an :amen: ?

[J4Jesus]

Presuming that everyone is OK with the Godhead section, it looks like it's time to move on to what WE BELIEVE concering the scriptures.







This is what we started with;The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16;&version=9;); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;)).

Earlier in the thread, DavidPresently suggested something similar to the following;All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))I like DP's modifications, and I'm cool with that.

Thoughts?
Wait its not the same

"Presuming...."

I really dont like it that was changed and I didnt know that. It sounds like we believe in three gods now. It said one God this evening.
I think it will turn people away saying it that way.

The next point,theWord, ... probably ...let me think

[God_Owned]

I would like to make one request when editing the wiki article itself, and that's to make sure the links to the scriptures are not removed in the editing, and that the formatting remain consistent. I understand the different fonts, sizes and colors in the discussion to make it easy to see changes, additions and clarifications, but once we come to a consensus, that is when we should post the agreed upon statement in the wiki, sans special formatting.

I would also suggest that the wiki not be edited until a full consensus is reached on each point as we discuss it. This will make it easier to track the updates to the wiki.

I've updated the wiki with links to the scriptures concerned. The content was NOT changed in any way from what God_Owned posted above, only the formatting, and the links added.

So, it appears as though we are all in agreement on "The Godhead"?




Last call for input on "The Godhead", which now reads;Our God is manifested in three separate, distinct, eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one (Deut. 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut%206:4&version=9); Phil. 2:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Phil%202:6;&version=9;); 1 John 5:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%205:7;&version=9;)). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:28;&version=9;); John 16:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:28;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1;&version=9;); John 1:18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:18;&version=9;); John 1:14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:14;&version=9;)). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus) (John 14:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16;&version=9;); John 15:26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2015:26;&version=9;)).


This is good.

[J4Jesus]

Wait.Idid not see any discussionon this.OK look at this

Yes, you are correct;


This would be it, with the change;Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds forth from both the Father and the Son and is eternal (John 14:16; John 15:26).

To also incorporate DP's change, it would read as follows;Our God is one, manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), commonly referred to as the Trinity (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).


Thats fine
They mean the same to me.


Now this is not the same I dont know where you got this. When was this discussed? the above post were just a few before this one. Why are you changing it? I thought Pete was doing that

Thank you for our agreement. I just put this on the Wiki edit thingy. :wave:

Our God is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one. (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6;1 John 5:7). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).It is the same, except what I put into red. I think it reads pretty good.

[God_Owned]

Presuming that everyone is OK with the Godhead section, it looks like it's time to move on to what WE BELIEVE concering the scriptures.




This is what we started with;The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16;&version=9;); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;)).

Earlier in the thread, DavidPresently suggested something similar to the following;All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))I like DP's modifications, and I'm cool with that.

Thoughts?

I like the original better.:wave:

[J4Jesus]

WHy am I being ignore here?
I am away just alittle while and its all changed

[J4Jesus]

Please slow down


So it doesnt matter I have been trying to help here a few days long hours.

:sigh:


I can't stay up half the night.....again

[J4Jesus]

Never mind I did it myself


from POST 289, 299 when we agreed about it, or even 291 which I didn't know about, is good. On wiki it was:


Our God is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one.


to


We believe in the one true God who is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit); these three are one.



Concernig this

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))


What do you think about adding it is our final authority over all circumtances, (even above any person, organization) , something to that effect. That is about our main teaching right there.



Wednesdays are busy. I will be on some time tomorrow afternoon or late. Please dont rush ahead without me in one day. I definately want to give some input on at least three points under salvation.


.

[Father Rick]

J4Jesus has a great point here...

A discussion is being started... 3 or 4 are deciding, then declaring a determination has been reached, and wiki is updated all within 24 hours...


There's no way a consensus CAN be reached that fast, since not all the posters have even had a time to be online. We have some who are not on here every day... and some who may only come on once a week or so...

Just because they are not on here 24/7 in no way dimishes their value or input as a member of the WoF forum. And there are some VERY regular members who I havent' seen even be part of this discussion yet-- maybe because they just haven't been online for a few days.

[Father Rick]

Presuming that everyone is OK with the Godhead section, it looks like it's time to move on to what WE BELIEVE concering the scriptures.




This is what we started with;The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16;&version=9;); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;)).

Earlier in the thread, DavidPresently suggested something similar to the following;All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))I like DP's modifications, and I'm cool with that.

Thoughts?Do we even want to start the infallible/inerrant discussion regarding scripture?

[probinson]

J4Jesus has a great point here...

A discussion is being started... 3 or 4 are deciding, then declaring a determination has been reached, and wiki is updated all within 24 hours...


There's no way a consensus CAN be reached that fast, since not all the posters have even had a time to be online. We have some who are not on here every day... and some who may only come on once a week or so...

Just because they are not on here 24/7 in no way dimishes their value or input as a member of the WoF forum. And there are some VERY regular members who I havent' seen even be part of this discussion yet-- maybe because they just haven't been online for a few days.
Actually, the discussion about the Godhead has been ongoing for almost a full week. That only 3 or 4 have chosen to get involved is really irrelevant. Those are the 3 or 4 that have chosen to get involved. An invitation was posted in the WoF forum, with a link to this discussion. I've seen quite a few people on the online list at the top of the thread that have chosen not to participate.

Whether 5% or 95% of your state shows up for elections, it in no way means that a "consensus" hasn't been reached on election day.

[probinson]

Wait its not the same

"Presuming...."

I really dont like it that was changed and I didnt know that. It sounds like we believe in three gods now. It said one God this evening.
I think it will turn people away saying it that way.
Hi J4,

You are correct. I did not notice that had been modified either. However, the reason I didn't catch this change was because it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how it is worded, because they both say the same thing in a different way.

When we say "Our God is manifest in 3 separate persons .... and these 3 are one", or "Our God is one, manifest in 3 separate persons", the meaning is identical. The format of the sentence is different, but the meaning is very much the same.

However, if you feel so strongly that it should be worded the second way, I have absolutely no problem with that.

[probinson]

Please slow down


So it doesnt matter I have been trying to help here a few days long hours.
Please don't feel like your input is not valuable. It's difficult in a forum setting to discuss and come to a true consensus, though we're trying the best we can.

Your input is very important.

[probinson]

I like my modifications too - and propose we don't spend too much time on this next portion - I mean - we are in the 30's of pages...Not to be impatient...:holy:

Can I get an :amen: ?
As much as I'd like to rush full steam ahead, I propose we leave each section open for discussion for at least 5 days. This will give ample time for those who wish to be involved with the process to get involved.

I also propose, again, that we do not modify the wiki article itself until the consensus is reached in the discussion.

[God_Owned]

Hi J4,

You are correct. I did not notice that had been modified either. However, the reason I didn't catch this change was because it doesn't matter to me one way or the other how it is worded, because they both say the same thing in a different way.

When we say "Our God is manifest in 3 separate persons .... and these 3 are one", or "Our God is one, manifest in 3 separate persons", the meaning is identical. The format of the sentence is different, but the meaning is very much the same.

However, if you feel so strongly that it should be worded the second way, I have absolutely no problem with that.

This is rediculous. Because she feels stongly about something you decide to change it. What happened to getting a concensus. So from now on, when I feel strongly about something, I expect you to change iot for me too.

It is settled, then it is and unsettled issue?

[probinson]

This is rediculous. Because she feels stongly about something you decide to change it. What happened to getting a concensus. So from now on, when I feel strongly about something, I expect you to change iot for me too.

It is settled, then it is and unsettled issue?
Actually, you were the one who made the change with no consensus, which I am assuming was an honest mistake.

If you go back to prior posts, you'll see that you modified the opening sentence of "The Godhead" without any discussion whatsoever, and then put it into the Wiki. All J4 did was change it back to what it said when we had a consensus.

[God_Owned]

Actually, you were the one who made the change with no consensus, which I am assuming was an honest mistake.

If you go back to prior posts, you'll see that you modified the opening sentence of "The Godhead" without any discussion whatsoever, and then put it into the Wiki. All J4 did was change it back to what it said when we had a consensus.

If I did, then it was because I don't understand this wiki business. I thought that what ever changes we make in wiki are simply related to the one running it as a suggested change. I think you like wiki better than I.

So, once again, do what ever you want, but at the present rate of progress, you will be lucky to finish this thing within six months.

It would be easier if you would just put in the Tenants of faith as Rhema presents them.

I still suggest that you post the ToF and the rules and then go through this process until it is completed.

That way, the Forum membership will have something pretty decent to work with until the refined versions completed.

...so will you change something for me when I feel strongly about it or do you only do that for certain people?

[probinson]

If I did, then it was because I don't understand this wiki business. I thought that what ever changes we make in wiki are simply related to the one running it as a suggested change.
The wiki article itself should be where the final, agreed upon, changes are placed. Every time a suggestion is made, it should not be placed into the wiki. That only confuses the process. Only when a consensus has been reached, should the wiki be updated.

So, once again, do what ever you want, but at the present rate of progress, you will be lucky to finish this thing within six months.
There are 10 subheadings listed on the wiki. If we were to spend 5 days discussing each, it would take us 50 days, or just under 2 months, to complete the process.

...so will you change something for me when I feel strongly about it or do you only do that for certain people?
Again, J4 didn't "change" a thing. She went back to the way it was worded when we were all in agreement. You re-worded the first sentence without any consensus, and placed it in the wiki.

[probinson]

In post #291 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36791358&postcount=291), you proposed the following statement, which was agreed upon;
We believe in the one true God. Our God is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one. (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6;1 John 5:7). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).But, what you actually placed into the wiki when you edited the article read like this (post #298 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36797880&postcount=298));
Our God is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one. (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6;1 John 5:7). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).In doing so, you completely omitted the first sentence ("We believe in the one true God") without any discussion whatsoever. J4Jesus was simply restoring that omitted sentence.

[God_Owned]

In post #291 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36791358&postcount=291), you proposed the following statement, which was agreed upon;


We believe in the one true God. Our God is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one. (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6;1 John 5:7). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).But, what you actually placed into the wiki when you edited the article read like this (post #298 (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36797880&postcount=298));


Our God is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one. (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6;1 John 5:7). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).In doing so, you completely omitted the first sentence ("We believe in the one true God") without any discussion whatsoever. J4Jesus was simply restoring that omitted sentence.

I already figured all this out after the fact. I vote you go with the first one.

[God_Owned]

As far as number two goes, please go with thie original.

The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16;&version=9;); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;)).

I feel strongly about this.:P

[probinson]

Currently, the (2) proposed statements for what WE BELIEVE concerning the scriptures are as follows;
The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16;&version=9;); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;)). All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))So far it, it looks like DavidPresently, myself and J4Jesus are for the second, while God_Owned is for the first.

Additionally, it looks like J4Jesus would like to add a statement similar to the statement in red;
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else.. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))
My reason for preferring the revised statement is because it is almost directly pulled from scripture. I think it does an excellent job of conveying the Word of Faith beliefs concerning scripture.

[God_Owned]

Currently, the (2) proposed statements for what WE BELIEVE concerning the scriptures are as follows;The Bible is the inspired Word of God, the product of holy men of old who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The New Covenant, as recorded in the New Testament, we accept as our infallible guide in matters pertaining to conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16;&version=9;); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;)). All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))So far it, it looks like DavidPresently, myself and J4Jesus are for the second, while God_Owned is for the first.

Additionally, it looks like J4Jesus would like to add a statement similar to the statement in red;

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else.. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))
My reason for preferring the revised statement is because it is almost directly pulled from scripture. I think it does an excellent job of conveying the Word of Faith beliefs concerning scripture.

I agree with J4Jesus' Change.:thumbsup: It more or less nulifies the reason I didn't care for DP's version.

[J4Jesus]

This is rediculous. Because she feels stongly about something you decide to change it. What happened to getting a concensus. So from now on, when I feel strongly about something, I expect you to change iot for me too.

It is settled, then it is and unsettled issue?
Actually God_Owned it was YOUR post #291 I quoted and that way is ok.

You said this was what you were changing it to so why not leave it that way? You changed it again. You said:

I think we should dlte the phrase"commonly referred to as the Trinity " and add "and these three are one."Foundational verse: 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.So it would read like this.We believe in the one true God. Our God is manifested in three separate distinct eternal Persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit), and these three are one. (Deut. 6:4; Phil. 2:6;1 John 5:7). God the Father is greater than all; the Sender of the Word (Logos) and the Begetter (John 14:28; John 16:28; John 1:14). The Son is the Word made flesh, the One Begotten, and has existed with the Father from the beginning (John 1:1; John 1:18; John 1:14). The Holy Ghost (Spirit) proceeds from the Father, is sent forth by the Son, and testifies of Him (Jesus).(John 14:16; John 15:26).

[probinson]

I agree with J4Jesus' Change.:thumbsup: It more or less nulifies the reason I didn't care for DP's version.
Excellent!

So, this is where we stand currently;
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else.. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))
Any other input?

[J4Jesus]

I agree with J4Jesus' Change.:thumbsup:
Thanks. It does matter which way to me just that this part is added. and can you add the reference verse for that at the end ?? Ps. 138:2



(which is "“For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.” )


I would like to add alittle more on this point .Let me get back with you as to the wording.

[probinson]

Thanks. It does matter which way to me just that this part is added. and can you add the reference verse for that at the end ?? Ps. 138:2

(which is "“For You have magnified Your word above all Your name.” )


I would like to add alittle more on this point .Let me get back with you as to the wording.
Sure thing;
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else.. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))

[Father Rick]

Excellent!

So, this is where we stand currently;
All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else.. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;))
Any other input?
As I alluded to previously...

Has anyone else noticed that this no longer states that the scriptures are infallible? Or is everyone trying to reach a consensus that they are fallible?


BTW... may I suggest the last few words be changed to "our final authority in matters of faith". (for example, the scripture doesn't say that the sky is blue, but it is.... however that is not a matter of faith/theology).

[Father Rick]

The wiki article itself should be where the final, agreed upon, changes are placed. Every time a suggestion is made, it should not be placed into the wiki. That only confuses the process. Only when a consensus has been reached, should the wiki be updated.

There are 10 subheadings listed on the wiki. If we were to spend 5 days discussing each, it would take us 50 days, or just under 2 months, to complete the process.

Again, J4 didn't "change" a thing. She went back to the way it was worded when we were all in agreement. You re-worded the first sentence without any consensus, and placed it in the wiki.
Now you can understand why some of the church councils lasted 20 years!

[J4Jesus]

--------

BTW... may I suggest the last few words be changed to "our final authority in matters of faith". (for example, the scripture doesn't say that the sky is blue, but it is.... however that is not a matter of faith/theology).
The Word of GOd is final authority in EVERY thing EVERY part of our life.

[God_Owned]

The Word of GOd is final authority in EVERY thing EVERY part of our life.

You tell him sis.:thumbsup:

[probinson]

The Word of GOd is final authority in EVERY thing EVERY part of our life.
:amen: to that, my sister!

[Father Rick]

I'm just recognizing the fact that there are some things the Bible is silent on...

For instance... the Bible never mentions dinosaurs. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that they're not mentioned. Nor does it speak of things such as automobiles (or speed limits), airplanes, space travel, thermodynamics, theoretical physics, etc.


These are all things that the Bible doesn't speak to, because it doesn't need to. Their existence (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to our salvation.

[DavidPresently]

Sure thing;All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work. The Holy Spirit moved on the prophets and apostles of old to pen the holy Scriptures, both the Old Testament, and New Testament. We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable, and it is our final authority over all else.. (2 Tim 3:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Tim%203:16-17&version=9); 1 Thess. 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20thess%202:13;&version=9;); 2 Peter 1:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%201:21;&version=9;); Ps 138:2 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps%20138:2&version=9))


I like that version best. Good idea adding the last portion, J4Jesus!

[DavidPresently]

I'm just recognizing the fact that there are some things the Bible is silent on...

For instance... the Bible never mentions dinosaurs. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that they're not mentioned. Nor does it speak of things such as automobiles (or speed limits), airplanes, space travel, thermodynamics, theoretical physics, etc.


These are all things that the Bible doesn't speak to, because it doesn't need to. Their existence (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to our salvation.

Yes, but those things don't have anything to do with our AUTHORITY either. They are scientific ways of describing something that is in creation. The Word is the authority on creation, but gives us the liberty to describe things as they are, in details where the Scripture is silent.

Our statement about the Scripture being our authority does not keep us from calling the sky blue or discussing thermodynamics. Your point is moot. :cool:

But thank you for your suggestions. :)

[probinson]

Our statement about the Scripture being our authority does not keep us from calling the sky blue or discussing thermodynamics. Your point is moot. :cool:
Agreed.

[J4Jesus]

The Word of GOd is final authority in EVERY thing EVERY part of our life.

The Word of God is the central point of Word of Faith <<---notice the name ;) ^_^

We speak, listen to and do what the Word says and it take precedence over what any person, any organization says, or churches/religious or Christian leader says, who would say the opposite of it. And we stand on what it says above all circumstances that come against us and keep our eyes on that Word, not looking to the left or the right, and not the situation. thats what Word Of Faith believes!


You dont want to get me started on this :doh: ;) :D .

[J4Jesus]

:amen: to that, my sister!

What do you think of this:


"....our supreme and final authority ...."

Do you think we should add it is the infallible inerrant Word of God? Opinions?

[DavidPresently]

The Word of God is the central point of Word of Faith <<---notice the name ;) ^_^

We speak, listen to and do what the Word says and it take precedence over what any person, any organization says, or churches/religious or Christian leader says, who would say the opposite of it. And we stand on what it says above all circumstances that come against us and keep our eyes on that Word, not looking to the left or the right, and not the situation. thats what Word Of Faith believes!


You dont want to get me started on this .

:amen:

[DavidPresently]

What do you think of this:


"....our supreme and final authority ...."

Do you think we should add it is the infallible inerrant Word of God? Opinions?

And unnecessary.

Let me just mention how refreshing it was coming here and reading your words about the Word of God, J4Jesus, after reading some posts in another section on this WoF forum, that effectively call the Word (who gives us Law - true eternal Law - how we are to live, talk, think, in LOVE and FAITH) a liar and of the devil - because of confusing certain things.

Thank you,

David

[pdudgeon]

just catching up here with the last 10 pages.:)

sorry, but the brain is a bit fried tonight, so someone will have to come up with the wonderful and magnificent words to fit the following ideas.

regarding our second statement, can we add something to the effect that we are accepting the current contents of the bible MINUS the aprocypha (sp) and that we recognize only the writings in the bible as our guide in all things.?

the reason i ask is because i don't want anyone to assume that they are WOF because they agree with the curent statement of accepting the bible as their source of belief and leave it at that. Every denomination on CF could say that. it needs to be emphasized that the bible as God's word is our only source for what we base our faith on, and that we are in no way to be confused with those who would routinely use other sources in addition to the bible as the basis for their faith and practices, such as Mormans, Seventh Day Adventists, 4 Square gospel, United Methodists, Confucious, Mao's little red book, the Talmud, the Koran, etc.

no other books, no other writings, no other eclesiastic traditions, no other historical sources, no other personal experiences.

the other religions and denominations have their basis for their faith which is fine for them. but we should make it perfectly clear that WOF bases our faith solely on what is in the bible, and nothing else in conjunction with it on any level, whether higher, of equal status, or of lower status.
It is just the bible. not the bible AND something else.

[Father Rick]

just catching up here with the last 10 pages.:)

sorry, but the brain is a bit fried tonight, so someone will have to come up with the wonderful and magnificent words to fit the following ideas.

regarding our second statement, can we add something to the effect that we are accepting the current contents of the bible MINUS the aprocypha (sp) and that we recognize only the writings in the bible as our guide in all things.?

the reason i ask is because i don't want anyone to assume that they are WOF because they agree with the curent statement of accepting the bible as their source of belief and leave it at that. Every denomination on CF could say that. it needs to be emphasized that the bible as God's word is our only source for what we base our faith on, and that we are in no way to be confused with those who would routinely use other sources in addition to the bible as the basis for their faith and practices, such as Mormans, Seventh Day Adventists, 4 Square gospel, United Methodists, Confucious, Mao's little red book, the Talmud, the Koran, etc.

no other books, no other writings, no other eclesiastic traditions, no other historical sources, no other personal experiences.

the other religions and denominations have their basis for their faith which is fine for them. but we should make it perfectly clear that WOF bases our faith solely on what is in the bible, and nothing else in conjunction with it on any level, whether higher, of equal status, or of lower status.
It is just the bible. not the bible AND something else.
There are several issues with what you have said here.

1) Nowhere in the Bible does it state what books should be in the Bible. So no matter whether you accept the deuterocanonical books or reject them, you are following someone's tradition, be that the tradition of the historic churches or the traditions of Luther's followers. (Luther actually threw out the books of James, Esther, and other books, btw, so it's not technically the Protestant tradition either-- the original Protestants had either less than the current 66 in most Protestant Bibles--throwing out the same books as Luther-- or more than 66--keeping some or all of the deuterocanonicals, depending on which country they were in).

2) Jesus, himself, as well as Jude quoted from the deuterocanonicals-- with Jesus actually stating his quote was taken from Scripture. So... either Jesus was wrong, or there has to be some kind of recognition of those books. Now, whether or not they should be on the same level as the rest of scripture is a whole different conversation... but if we're going to accept every part of the Gospels as infallible, then we have to accept Jesus' words regarding that as well.

And as far as stating that we only accept the "current contents" of the Bible, you will have to specify which Bibles you refer to, since there are differences within which books are in different Bibles. The RCC has one set of books. The Anglicans are similar, but with different "weight" assigned to different books (the deuterocanonicals are recognized but not seen as the same weight as the canon). The Eastern Orthodox can't agree with themselves, much less anyone else and so different EO groups have different books in their Bibles. Most Protestants use the books contained in the "modern" KJV (the first 3 versions of the KJV contained the deuterocanonicals), however some Protestant churches use translations that include deuterocanonicals-- albeit only assigning the same weight as the Anglicans do.

Oh... and some actually have "additional parts" of some of the books included in the Bibles used mainly by Protestants, so even a list of "we accept these books of the Bible" would have to delineate how many chapters are accepted in each book.

3). Scripture itself never states that it is either infallible or inerrant. While I believe that it is both, such belief cannot be proven with scripture, but comes only from church tradition. To simultaneously state that scripture is infallible and inerrant... and to state that we ase our faith on nothing else is actually a contradition. If we believe it is infallible and inerrant it is BECAUSE we accept church tradition that it is such and such a belief can ONLY be proven with church tradition and not with scripture.

[J4Jesus]

Pdudgeon


"We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable and it is our ONLY and final authority...."

????

[DavidPresently]

Pdudgeon


"We affirm that ALL scripture is profitable and it is our ONLY and final authority...."

????


Fine if we add..."for the foundation of doctrine and practice."

Because without that clarification it isn't true. God is our Authority, not the Scripture. We all believe the Scripture is from him, "God-breathed," and thus A PART of his authority over us, specifically to give us a firm foundation for establishing covenant doctrine and practice.

If we say "only" authority period, then we are in effect saying the Holy Spirit cannot lead us, when in fact we all believe the Holy Spirit is to lead us and teach us the Scripture. "Only" makes no provision for such.

[DavidPresently]

just catching up here with the last 10 pages.:)

sorry, but the brain is a bit fried tonight, so someone will have to come up with the wonderful and magnificent words to fit the following ideas.

regarding our second statement, can we add something to the effect that we are accepting the current contents of the bible MINUS the aprocypha (sp) and that we recognize only the writings in the bible as our guide in all things.?

the reason i ask is because i don't want anyone to assume that they are WOF because they agree with the curent statement of accepting the bible as their source of belief and leave it at that. Every denomination on CF could say that. it needs to be emphasized that the bible as God's word is our only source for what we base our faith on, and that we are in no way to be confused with those who would routinely use other s