Posted on 06/13/2015 11:06:42 AM PDT by kinsman redeemer
AWANA Clubs international is a Bible-centered youth ministry with 30,000 charter "clubs" around the world.
Their statement of faith describes a sound doctrine.
I invite you to take a look.
Like I said about, what else are theyvwrong about?
.D. Jakes has the same statement on his church’s website. Should we cut him some slack too?
Didn’t you read post 1?
What else are they wrong about? I didn’t see anything. That’s why I would be willing to figure that it’s just a matter of careless wording.
TD Jakes has other issues that are more glaring. That prosperity gospel stuff is plenty enough but when you take all his stuff together, that’s less excusable.
I never heard of it till today, so I looked it up. I only read a few sentences before I rejected it.
My kids loved AWANA and learned a lot there.
Not really...I think it's a matter of semantics...
Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing as three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.
Mentioned is the Trinitarian forumula which says God existed in 3 persons...I thinks that's wrong...God didn't exist in 3 persons, God IS 3 persons...However, God is not recogizable in 3 persons...We will never see God the Father nor will we see the Holy Spirit...
And yet while there are 3 persons, there is only 1 person, God...And that 1 person, God, will only be recognizable as Jesus...
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Php 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Rev 22:13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
I think this Modelism accusation thing is a farce...God DOES appear in 3 forms...He appears as having a body...He appears (not really) as the Holy Spirit and he appears (again not really) as the Father...
These 'forms' that God is revealed in we call persons...
The Baptist position as far as I know is God is 3 persons, yet 1 Person...
This Trinity thing is more mysterious than we all know...To call someone a heretic when there is not enough scripture to have a definitive understanding is to me, unwise...
They use the following phrases, which are found NOWHERE in the scriptures:
“God the Son”
“God the Holy Spirit”
I thought you were one of those sola scriptura proponents. Why no criticism of those phrases? Neither Jesus Christ, nor his apostles, EVER used those phrases.
If you cling to those phrases, you are clinging to the RCC and don’t even know it, and are leaving yourself open to having to accept their ‘mother of God’ nonsense.
I have a question.
Why does Jesus mentions in Mathew 28 in the great commision to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
How was this fact revealed to you?
;^)
Scripture
I did read post 1.
But this is a pretty huge deal, not just some disagreement about a nonessential issue.
Again, if they are this sloppy with a fundamental doctrine, what other issues are they wrong about, maybe not in the above doctrine, but in teaching materials they use to teach children.
But I guess I’m in the minority here so I have spoken my peace and I’ll go play elsewhere.
**I have a question. Why does Jesus mentions in Mathew 28 in the great commision to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?**
Why do you call Matthew 28 the ‘great commission’, as though it is greater than his other commissions? One of his other recorded commissions (Luke 24:47) says that “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem”.
Let’s look at Matt. 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:..”.
The greatest teacher of all gave the disciples that commandment, and they promptly went about baptizing in the name of JESUS. Now, first of all, note that he says ‘name’ in the singular, not ‘names’. ‘Son’ is a title. “thou shalt call his NAME Jesus”. Luke 1:21. Jesus Christ said that his name is not his own (John 5:43), And Heb. 1:4 says that he inheritted it.
Where did the Son get his name? The Father gave it to him. The Son is named after the Father.
What name does the Holy Ghost come in?....“The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the FATHER will SEND in MY NAME...”. John 14:26
If you know a man, maybe even a relative that is named after his dad, and he asked you to do something in the name of him, and his father, wouldn’t you already know the NAME? That’s why Matt. 28:19 doesn’t have ‘Jesus’ spelled out. The disciples knew the NAME, and used it when ever they baptized souls.
Did not Jesus commanded His disciples to “make disciples of all the nations” ? That is the GREAT COMMISSION He gave before He Ascended back to Heaven?
While Luke’s reference to the preaching and calling for repentance “begining in Jerusalem”, in Mathew, it is also a call to form disciples via both teaching and baptizing in all the nations, for such, is called “the great commission.”
**While Luke’s reference to the preaching and calling for repentance “begining in Jerusalem”,**
Why did you leave out “remission of sins” from the preaching, in Luke 24:47? The initial preaching by the apostles began in Acts 2, where Peter, in verse 38, commanded repentance and baptism in the name of JESUS Christ for the remission of sins.
**in Mathew, it is also a call to form disciples via both teaching and baptizing in all the nations**
So, in your view, the followers of Peter’s preaching repentance and remission of sins, are not disciples, because Luke 24:47 doesn’t say what they will be? Isn’t a convert a follower, or a disciple?
Mark 16:15-18 is more of the Lord’s commissions for converting souls. There is no separation. All of God’s commissions to reach the lost are great.
I was typing in shorthand that was why.
Also Mathew’s version is the more well known commission.
**Also Mathew’s version is the more well known commission.**
....which is kind of a shame, imo, seeing the other commissions are just as important, given by the same Lord, and also spoken after his resurrection.
Sadly, the other two commissions from Luke and Mark get overshadowed by the one from Mathew.
Didn’t you read post 1?What else are they wrong about? I didn’t see anything. That’s why I would be willing to figure that it’s just a matter of careless wording.
Reading it, I classify it as "generic American evangelical". Vague and general, by and large correct, but narrowing in on some idiosyncratic particulars that would lock out (among others) Lutherans and the Reformed & Presbyterians.
And then there is...
John 6:28-29
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.