Milk or Meat Sermons?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

When did I EVER say that oneness folks have it all figured out? In fact, I said, specifically that there are oneness people who are really "twoness", and that's just one faction...we can leave off Branhamites, divine fleshers, and other twists on doctrine.



I don't really get the "whining" comment.

I have no "line" to peddle, Baron. I have no agenda behind stating that there are some trinitarians who believe in 3 separate and distinct "beings" or deities in the godhead, and additionally believe that those 3 eternally "co-existed."

I have a husband who was saved from a trinitarian church and baptized in Jesus' name and he knew people who believed both as well. He had a Sunday School teacher who believed in oneness doctrine (and taught in a trinitarian church), and she was the first one who introduced him to the truth. His dad is so dogmatic, that he "disowned" Jeff for awhile, told him he'd rather he was part of the Mormons or Jehovah's witnesses than "Jesus-only" and I didn't meet his parents until our wedding, about three years after Jeff was converted.

The way some of you talk, there was absolutely no reason for my husband to convert.

My mother was converted from being a Baptist; she was praying and read I Timothy 3:16, which opened her eyes to a new understanding of God.

Hey, if it doesn't matter how it's explained, if we all really believe the same thing, then don't try to convert any trinitarians to oneness doctrine or being baptized in Jesus' name.

But...maybe that's your take already.

I've spoken to a lot of trinitarians, have a lot of family members who are trinitarians, and have friends who are trinitarian. MOST of them say they believe in one God, but in that group, many of them still express their understanding in a way that reflects the "separate & distinct but unified" idea. SOME of them express specifically that they believe in three gods. Additionally, I've sat in the room while my Dad argued with trinitarians for HOURS, and I know that many of them do believe in 3, while others will not only say they believe in 1, but will also state that baptism in Jesus' name is probably the way the apostles baptized. For some reason, some of them won't follow through on that profession, either because they don't think it matters, or because they think either mode is equally biblical.

I'm just stating my true experience. I know that some people put words in other folks' mouths. They deliberately confuse them and then say, "Aha! You really DO believe in 3 gods." I'm surprised that you would put me in that agenda-driven disingenuous group.

I know your post wasn't to me but as far as I know every trinitarian believes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all eternal and have always coexisted.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by notofworks

It was actually called the "Radio Church of God" when he started it and didn't change to "Worldwide" until the late 60's. That's what I was referring to when I said "Church of God". There's a million different "Church of God's".

And I swung and missed on Cleveland. I got confused with 2 of the one million Church of God's! My apologies!

A million? I think you have that wrong also.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

A million? I think you have that wrong also.

papa coadie!!!!!!!!

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Why? Just answer my question. I tried my best to answer all of yours.

No, you didn't. You started throwing stuff like, "You should probably figure out why that bugs you so much" as if I've got a problem and then you essentially accused me of calling you a liar. If a person expresses surprise at something you say, as I did, and then you turn the molehill of surprise into the mountain of you being called a "liar", then you're stratching things way too far for me. I'm not gonna participate in that nonsense. If you wanna have a civil discussion, fine. But if you're gonna throw the personal semi-insults, I'm not interested. I get tired of it.

And I don't even know what the question was. As soon as you started all the verbal daggers, I checked out.

Yankees in 6 is my prediction. They have CC Sabathia going three times and I think it's just gonna be too much for the Phillies.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by coadie

A million? I think you have that wrong also.

Naaaaaaaawwww.......you don't say!

Good grief.

[kjhouk]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It sounds more to me like......1 Cor 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that being a Christian precludes you from eating and drinking somethings because we should do all to the glory of God.

Oddly enough, Paul is talking about eating and drinking things that some people think you SHOULDN'T eat or drink and saying that you CAN eat/drink those things ... couple it with Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16 and you have a much different picture that what you seem to be painting.

[kjhouk]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

I think we need both- "milk" and "meat" sermons. The trick is knowing the difference between the two.

Milk promotes growth. Any sermon that promotes spiritual growth and leads to maturity is a "milk" sermon. We sometimes make the unfortunate mistake in thinking of "milk" sermons as a little less important than "meat" sermons. However, they are every bit as important, they just serve a different purpose and need in the Body of Christ.

Meat is a source of protein- strength and energy. "Meaty" sermons give us the strength and endurance to face lifes everday challenges. A minister, who has spiritual insight and his finger on the congregations pulse, will know who needs what and when they need it.

All to often, the minister preaches/teaches what he knows, rather than digging into the Word to find exactly what his congregation needs.

Just my thoughts, but... what do ya expect from a heating and air guy!

I know I'm way behind on this thread, but I'm trying to catch up:

I don't know where you get your milk/meat understanding.

Milk, in Scripture, is talked about as food for the immature. Not necessarily food for growth, but stuff that has to be easy to swallow because people can't handle the "meat" of the word. It is always preferable to leave the milk behind and go on to the meat.

Hebrews 5-6 has a great portion on that. The writer gets a little ticked at his readers and says something to the effect of, "You should be eating meat by now and teaching other people, but you aren't. So go back to the kids table and I'm going to teach you a few things."

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by kjhouk

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that being a Christian precludes you from eating and drinking somethings because we should do all to the glory of God.

Oddly enough, Paul is talking about eating and drinking things that some people think you SHOULDN'T eat or drink and saying that you CAN eat/drink those things ... couple it with Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16 and you have a much different picture that what you seem to be painting.

You'll have to explain yourself a little better for me to answer this. I don't know what you are talking about and I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying as well.

As Christians we are at liberty to eat anything we want to eat because we give thanks to God for it, even food offered to an idol, but we are not at liberty to eat if we damage a weaker Christian's conscience (someone Christ died for). Therefore whatever we do (which includes what we eat) we should do it that God will be glorified.

[kjhouk]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

You'll have to explain yourself a little better for me to answer this. I don't know what you are talking about and I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm saying as well.

As Christians we are at liberty to eat anything we want to eat because we give thanks to God for it, even food offered to an idol, but we are not at liberty to eat if we damage a weaker Christian's conscience (someone Christ died for). Therefore whatever we do (which includes what we eat) we should do it that God will be glorified.

So we have liberty but we don't have liberty?

I personally think a lot of damage has been done by appealing to the "weaker Christian" argument. From what I understand of Paul's writing, he seems to say that the liberty remains, but we sometimes suspend our liberty for the good of a fellow Christian, while in their presence, to not tempt them to violate their conscience. BUT at the same time, good teaching should bring those weaker Christians to a more mature position where they are also able to enjoy liberty in what they eat, drink, and which days they celebrate.

In our zeal to not offend the weaker, we fail to challenge and teach them toward maturity.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by kjhouk

So we have liberty but we don't have liberty?

I personally think a lot of damage has been done by appealing to the "weaker Christian" argument. From what I understand of Paul's writing, he seems to say that the liberty remains, but we sometimes suspend our liberty for the good of a fellow Christian, while in their presence, to not tempt them to violate their conscience. BUT at the same time, good teaching should bring those weaker Christians to a more mature position where they are also able to enjoy liberty in what they eat, drink, and which days they celebrate.

In our zeal to not offend the weaker, we fail to challenge and teach them toward maturity.

I like how you put that.