Bienvenidos a todos los dirigentes e Curico, por participar en este Curso de Web 2.0 y Periodismo Ciudadano, ya que hara crecer su red social y mostrarle al mundo lo que significa Curico para ustedes.

 

Otra Vez Bienvenidos y a escribir señores!!!!

, â??Perhaps youâ??ve been talking to the wrong Presbyterians?â??Perhaps I have, but I have to say I have found a genaerl antipathy to any notion of change from almost every reformed person I have ever spoken to. The only ones who seem to be open to the idea of change are the so called, â??modern Calvinistsâ?? but these people also seem to be open to all sorts of non-scriptural teaching. So, it seems there is error on either side (as usual). I donâ??t have time to respond fully to what you said about lifting hands, but I would say that while B.B. Warfield seems to have understood what the lifting of holy hands symbolises, he has forgotten about the symbol itself! What if we had no baptism, because we treated it only as a symbol? Presbyterians *almost* go this far with their non-scriptural notions of pre-birth baptism, but they stop short. What if we forgot about the symbol of the Lordâ??s supper? What if we said, â??we partake of the Lordâ??s body and blood by faith. We donâ??t need the outer signsâ??? While it is true that *by faith* men partake of the body and blood of Christ, and *by faith* they are born into the people of God and are circumcised with the circumcision of the heart (upon rebirth), still there are also symbols of these things; symbols that the Lord has ordained for us to keep. So it is that we are to eat the bread and wine treating them as emblems, and so it is that we are to be baptised with water after being born into the children of God (as the Israelite children were circumcised just after their birth, to show that they were born of the people of God). These things are only symbolic, but the fact is, *nothing* in this world (except regenerate spirits and minds) can possibly be anything other than a shadow, for this whole world is going to pass away. Therefore, the *whole thing* is only a symbol. The *whole thing* is to point forward. Everything we do in life should be a testimony, a picture, a symbol, of the love between the bridegroom and his bride; all according to the ordinances of God. Whether it be in our praying, or in our singing, or whatever else. Thus it is that when believers lift up holy hands (there being nothing more natural than this) as did the Puritans and the godly men of old, they are testifying to the attitude of the heart of Jesusâ?? beloved bride! **Everything** we do should be an act of love to God. â??*This* is the love of God, that we keep his commandmentsâ??.You said, â??Are we always required to hold up our hands when we pray? How often and how high?â?¦ If we donâ??t hold our hands above our heads for exactly 46.5% of the prayer, we have failed in our worship of God?â??Okay, I take your point! But of course if I am speaking about a godly custom, then it *will* be open abuse! The legalists will always try to add in extra requirements, just as the Pharisees abused the commandments of Godâ??s law. But if we let this deter us then we wouldnâ??t follow *any* commandment at all! Let me demonstrate by applying your own questioning standard: Scripture says, â??preach the wordâ??. I ask, if we were really meant to do this outwardly, then for how long should it be done? In what manner? If, â??preachingâ?? is different to simply, â??speakingâ?? then precisely what style should the preacher need to preach in, or how loud does the preacher have to be before his words constitute, â??preachingâ??? Of course, you might want to answer some of these questions from scripture, and I donâ??t have a problem with that, but whatever you answer, it is always the case that one may proceed to ask more questions concerning the matter. Just because you can ask, â??Are we always required to hold up our hands when we pray? How often and how high?â?? doesnâ??t mean it is wrong to lift up holy hands.You have said, â??If you feel the need, go for it.â??Ah, but this *must* be wrong regardless of the truth of the matter. For if it is right that we lift up holy hands in prayer, then it is right for everyone. But if I hold a mistaken interpretation of the many verses which speak of lifting holy hands, then surely that interpretation is wrong for everyone!You have said, â??Worship is not a memory test.â??Well, worship is not a test at all. But it does require memory. Memory is a part of the mind. We are to worship God with all our *minds* as well as our hearts and souls. Besides, I have already commented on the fact that it is universally recognised: God has given men a remarkable ability to remember words when they are put to a tune (preferably not a metered tune). Many teenage girls can recite all the words to every song on every album of their favorite rock band. If they can do this, why canâ??t Christians just memorise 150 songs? If they get stuck, the rest of the congregation will inevitably keep them on track. Have a look at the following non-metered Psalms. These are sung straight out of the King James Version. I guarantee that if you practice this a few times, you will remember not only every word to these Psalms after a week, but the tunes as well! You have said, â??Having copies of the Psalter to hold in front of us while we sing is a good and wise inference from the Regulative Principle of Worshipâ??Have you ever memorised a Psalm and sung it at home or when you are relaxing? I can tell you it is just bliss to close your eyes and sing to the Lord of his own word totally from memory (you wonâ??t need to *struggle* to remember, for if you have memorised it, it will just come naturally). It is so freeing not to have to hold a book in front of you. It is so freeing not having to read and sing at the same time. It is so holy.You have said, â??Our doctrine of the depravity of man also implies that we would want to guard against the people (and the minister) proceeding in worship simply on the basis of their memoryâ??The â??totalâ?? out of â??total depravityâ?? applies to the *scope* of manâ??s wickedness. It does not say that man is as wicked as he can be. It says that man is depraved in every way; everything he does is corrupt. The doctrine of total depravity means you will be depraved *whatever* you do, whether it be reading from a Psalter or singing from memory! Besides, how are Godâ??s people to worship God with all their minds if they are not to worship him with their memories?You have said, â??There is nothing in Godâ??s Word that would seem to imply that we cannot or should not have a copy of the Bible or Psalter in front of us when we worshipâ??Then you admit they sang from memory in the early church? You admit that Paul and all the congregations of the early church sang from memory? I thought you were saying that because of our total depravity we shouldnâ??t do this? I thought you were saying that that this would be disorderly? Clearly you are mistaken. The regulative principle of worship says that if the worship of the church as described in scripture was good and wholesome *then* (as opposed to disorderly), it means it is good and wholesome *now*! Communal worship with Psalters is a bad idea for a number of reasons, but let me give you a few: 1) It is on a is largely on account of not *needing* to memorise the Psalms to worship the Lord, that so many people *havenâ??t* memorised the Psalms. Iâ??m no saint here. I havenâ??t memorised them all either. But it was after the people I meet with decided to get rid of the Psalter that I was forced to start memorising them and I have benefitted no end from getting rid of that Psalter.2) When you are reading the words of the Psalter as you sing, it is an unnatural form of singing. Have you ever noticed that when you read aloud in public, often you donâ??t actually follow what it is you are reading? You are trying so hard to ensure that you are reading it correctly and saying the right words in the right tone of voice, that you actually miss the message? It can be the same with Psalters to a lesser degree.3) When you are singing from a Psalter, you are always looking down. You cannot *see* the people of God worshiping as they did in the early church because you are looking at a book. To a certain degree, I have found that this actually hinders people from fully appreciating the total unity of the church in worship of the Lord. Also, some people who are timid, like to *hide* behind their Psalter. They donâ??t like to look around or have people looking at them. They are embarrassed about the fact that they are singing in, â??worshipâ?? to God! You have said, â??I would like to hear more of the reasons you mentioned we are not truly regulated by Godâ??s Word.â??Iâ??d be glad to give you a few, but I canâ??t possibly go through *why* I believe all these; it would simply take too long. Also, please, Iâ??ve heard that Iâ??m a legalist from enough people already, I donâ??t need to hear it again. I know what I believe and why I believe it. Calvinists tend to be very good at telling others that they are sinning, and get quite annoyed when when they are accused of legalism, but when they are told about their own sins, they tend to instantly start accusing others of legalism. How alike we all are to the people we would hate to be! How sinful we are for our attitude, which is in effect the same as the one the man had who said, â??God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publicanâ??! Please bear this in mind as I take you through these. Also bear in mind that nothing I am about to tell you has been made up or invented. I am simply sticking very closely to scripture. All of these doctrines have been held to by various Christian groups history, and it is overwhelmingly the *modern* church which has departed from them. â?¢ Firstly, Iâ??d just like to mention something that was said by Anonymous: â??Where in Scripture is there everyone in the congregation having a Bible to read out of during sermons and perhaps Scripture readings too?â?? Spot on Anonymous, whoever you are! â?¢ In the early church there were services that were open to all the men to speak. In this way the Holy Spirit would lead. So, if someone has a word of ministry, it should be given, whoever it is. It doesnâ??t have to be a set preacher. (the women, of course, are not permitted to speak). If someone has a psalm, it should be given, whoever it is. It is scriptural, of course, to have a preacher and elders, and not many should be teachers. But nevertheless, if the Lord lays a word on a brotherâ??s heart, he should be allowed to speak it openly and freely, or if the Lord gives him a psalm, he should be allowed to recommend it. In the early church, there were of course set times for set sermons. But there were other services when questions could be asked; when prayers could be prayed and when *ministry* could be given by those whom the Lord gave it to. In my experience, Presbyterians seem to put too much emphasis on the pastor. What about the words, *every one* in, â??How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, *every one* of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.â??? BTW, the Plymouth Brethren have services for this very thing, and they *still* have set preachers and set sermons in *other* services, and it all works very well. So relient on the preacher are some presbyterians, that at the worst of times, I have even known the whole church service to be called off just because the preacher couldnâ??t make it! Can you believe that? They would cease to come together to worship God (to gather together, *not* to the preacher, but rather, â??to the name of the Lordâ??) all because one man could not be there! Churches that do this may as well have their own popes, for that is practically what they seem to have anyway.â?¢ Services should *never* be called off because â??not enough peopleâ?? could be there. Wherever two or three are gathered in his name, he is there in the midst. â?¢ The Lordâ??s supper should be practised every first day of every week, as was the practice in the early church, for we read that they went to their houses and met together to break bread.â?¢ The building for meeting should not be called a fancy name, lest the emphasis be put on the building not the thing that happens there. I have noticed the particular perniciousness of this tradition (of men), and how people still deny that it has any negative effect of â??theirâ?? church! Yet it leaves churches in a sorry state. The church is the *called out assembly*, not the building! And yet, when there are names (as opposed to descriptions) attached to a building, such as, â??Bethel Chapelâ?? or â??Trinity Churchâ?? the whole congregation become subtly trapped (such that they donâ??t even realise it!) into the mindset of, â??the church is the buildingâ??. Scripture speaks of the called out assembly, saying, â??the church, which *is* the house of Godâ??. The building isnâ??t the house of God! Its the church! In the early days, if they met in a personâ??s house, they would just call it â??a houseâ??. If they met in an upper room, they would just call it â??an upper roomâ??. Why? Because that is *all* it was! â?¢ Women often wear head coverings in church, but this is not what scripture says! Scripture says, â??when they pray or prophesyâ??. We know, of course, that Paul wasnâ??t speaking about the church service when he said that women should wear head coverings when they pray or prophesy, for only a little later in the same letter he forbade women from prophesying in church (or speaking) at all! Therefore, he must have meant *whenever* they pray or prophesy.â?¢ In the church I attend, thankfully people regard contraception as a sin, but in many churches they do not see how this practise totally distorts the picture between Christ and his bride. â?¢ The communion supper should be practised with *unleavened* bread, since Jesus said, â??Do *this* in remembrance of meâ??. Jesus *was* the unleavened bread and he *was* the fulfilment of all the Old Testament words concerning the unleavened bread, and the bread he broke with his disciples, saying, â??do *this*â?? was the passover meal, which is made of unleavened bread. Leaven is *always* a picture of sin in scripture, and it totally deprives the symbolism of the supper if leavened bread is used.â?¢ Women in *many* presbyterian churches show off their legs, and their upper chests! Sometimes, I have even seen them show the crack of their breasts! Clearly these women are not true Christians, for if they were they would not think it acceptable to show their nakedness as the world does. Nevertheless, they do it and their husbands/fathers allow it. It is utterly shameful of all parties concerned. If these women were to go back to John Knoxâ??s day, them and their husbands wouldnâ??t even be allowed inside the building due to their total disrespect for the Lord. About a hundred years ago, it was considered quite inappropriate for women to show their ankles, and rightly so, for the ankles need not be on display. I said this to a young Baptist woman once, and she replied by asking whether I thought Christian women should dress like Muslims! I should have replied, â??No! Christian women should dress like Christians!â?? That is, modestly and with shamefacedness. If you wouldnâ??t have a preacher in the pulpit in shorts, then why would you have a woman in the pews in a dress that does not cover her lower legs?â?¢ The first day of the week is *not* the sabbath, so Presbyterians should stop calling it that! It was *never* called that in scripture. The sabbaths have all been fulfilled: â??Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.â?? Today the believer finds his rest in Jesus, and he looks forward to the eternal sabbath, into which he must strive to enter: â??So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered Godâ??s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedienceâ??â?¢ The King James Version has mistakes in it! It is a very good translation, but it is not perfect. A brother and I have done some detailed study of several passages and have found that the Geneva version was actually more litteral in several places, and the King James more litteral in others.â?¢ Chapter and verse numbers are not in the Bible. We are meant to â??searchâ?? the scriptures, not â??look them upâ??! Perhaps then our scripture knowledge would be better! â?¢ â??Local church membershipâ?? is not a scriptural doctrine. It is sectarian and explicitly commanded against in scripture. *All* who are believed to be true and upstanding should be allowed to partake of the communion supper. There is no such thing as â??local church membershipâ?? in scripture. There is only membership of the body of Christ. Denominational communion is a sin. If you discern the body of Christ, the church (that is, if you are a true believer) then *nobody* has the right to bar you from the Lordâ??s table! â?¢ Teaching should be consecutive at times, as Jesus taught in the Synagogues in this manner. However, in *other* services, it should be free, as Peterâ??s sermon was, or many of Paulâ??s sermons were, so that the preacher is not going through, â??chapter by chapterâ??. â?¢ Preaching should be extemporary (that is, without notes) as was *all* the preaching in the New Testament. The Gospel Standard Strict and Particular Baptists of England practise this, and I can say that theirs are some of the most powerful sermons you are ever likely to come across. Unfortunately, they donâ??t believe in recording them or putting them online, â??lest they get into the wrong handsâ??. Yes, unfortunately they happen to be hyper-Calvinists. Nevertheless, their sermons are perhaps the best sermons I have ever heard and the Holy Spirit is more free to move when sermon notes are put aside.â?¢ It is essentially effeminate for men to cut their beards. I donâ??t make *anything* of Old Testament law concerning this. It has *certainly* passed away, and no commandments concerning the trimming of the edges of the beard apply any more. However, I believe that scripture clearly presents it as shameful for a man to have no beard (such as when the Israelites did not want to return to their homes after their beards cut off, or when Jesusâ?? beard was plucked out before crucifixion to put him to shame). It is just a fact of nature: Men without beards look very feminin.â?¢ Women should not cut the hair *at all*, yet many presbyterian women cut it. The scriptures clearly present the shearing of the hair as shameful. It is forbidden for a womanâ??s hair to be short of its natural length. Though many churches have held this doctrine throughout history, today it is only held by a few independent Baptists and some Pentecostals. Surely we are living in dark days.â?¢ Faithful Christians do not indulge in luxuries or in anything that is not helpful to the Christian life. For example, their children are allowed to waste their time playing with â??toysâ?? but should learn about the *real* world. There are no toys in scripture. No true Christian has many possessions. He has sold his possessions and given alms, as Jesus said, â??sell that ye have, and give almsâ??. All who have not done this are rich, and as Jesus said, â??woe unto youâ??. There are Guatemalan children rummaging around in garbage dumps right now, cutting their little fingers on sharp objects. Fake Christians will spend a huge amount extra to purchase an Audi, or a fast car of some kind, rather than purchasing a cheaper car that would be find for their needs. By doing this, they are neglecting the poor man on the doorstep. Today more than ever before the worldâ??s poor are on the doorsteps of the West. All that extra money could be spent on sending missionaries to feed these children, or to build orphanages for them. But many so called, â??Christiansâ?? have bought jewelry and all sorts of mod-cons, like iPhones. Why? All to gratify the flesh. That is the *real* reason. â??woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolationâ?? meaning simply, if youâ??re rich, you wonâ??t get any consolation in heaven.â?¢ The open collection box in a church building is an abomination to the Lord, as are all forms of religious begging. â??And they went forth, taking nothing of the heathenâ??. Church members should share what they have with their brethren, as did the early church. There are people in England called the â??Jesus Armyâ?? who do this very thing, and it works very well, except that the Jesus Army folk go too far with it. Christians in New Testament times still owned their own houses, and this should be permitted, although they should share them with the brethren whom they love. â??And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things commonâ??.â?¢ The words, â??fatâ?? and, â??gluttonâ?? are pretty much synonymous in scripture, and all fat people should be delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh. Jesus himself prophesied about the last of the last days, in which there will be fat people in practically every church and congregation. He said that in the last of the last days men would be companions of gluttons and drunkards. No chocolate or potato chips or anything unhelpful should be eaten. Only those things that are healthy for the body, which is the temple of the Holy Spirit! â?¢ Men should say â??Amenâ?? when they agree to something in the prayer, as was scriptural practise.â?¢ Chit-chat is a vile form of speech. All speech should be about godly matters and concern things that are helpful.â?¢ Almost all jokes and jests are foolish and need to be put away as foolish jesting. Christians should jest only about those things they are commanded to jest about in scripture.â?¢ Those men who think it is acceptable to go to the theatre to see ungodly movies, or to watch some kind of filth, should be excommunicated, as was scriptural practise with those approving of filthiness. â?¢ Names for Christians, such as, â??Calvinistsâ?? are fine and scriptural. Indeed, â??Christianâ?? is a perfect example of such a name. Names for doctrines, such as, â??baptistâ?? or, â??amillennialistâ?? are also helpful (at times). But when Christians start defining their church according to these names, I have a problem. They say, â??I go to a Baptist churchâ?? or, â??Iâ??m a Presbyterianâ?? not so much to refer to the doctrines of baptism or church government, but rather to tell their hearer that they are of a faction of Christians. Paul explicitly speaks against this practise of sectarianism: â??Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?â??I could go on and onâ?¦birthdays were only ever celebrated by *evil* kings of the Old Testament, and are sinful, as is X-mas and easter, which are pagan practices. All, â??articles of faithâ?? books are totally unscriptural. etc, etcâ?¦ Basically, if you canâ??t find the equivalent in scripture, it is because the Lord doesnâ??t want you doing it. Sound systems, believe it or not, *are* in scripture! I canâ??t remember which prophet, but somewhere it is written that they made a tall pulpit out of wood so that the prophetâ??s voice could be heard. There are of course, non-practical issues that I think the Presbyterians have got wrong. For example, Paul didnâ??t write the book of Hebrews, and the scripture says so; there was no â??covenant of worksâ?? with Adam (Herman Hoeksema had some good things to say about this). For all those dispensational Presbyterians out there, scripture makes it plain that there is only one people of God in eternity, and there is no such thing as a pre-tribulation rapture! For all those covenant theologians out there, scripture makes it plain that God will stip away the gentiles and graft back in the Jews at a future time (before the Lord returns). It also says Godâ??s people will reign with him for a thousand years. But I could go on and on for hours with all the disagreements I have with the Presbyterians. Ultimately, whether people are Presbyterian or Baptist, or anything else for that matter, my main problem is that they are stuck in their time bubble, products of their generation. They donâ??t realise that they are not actually *considering* the issues at hand when they think about them. They wonder about alternatives only as a fancy: They always seem to find their way back to agreeing with what everybody else in their church says on a particular matter. They donâ??t seem to realise that people thought totally differently in ages past, and that the odd ones out our this generation were actually in the majority a few generations back. Though they deny it, there is an implicit assumption on their part that our generation of Christians is superior than the last. For example, I have heard many critics of the reformation say that Calvin was a murderer for having Servetus burnt at a stake. Loyal Calvinists of todayâ??s generation reply that it was actually the city council that had Servetus executed for Calvin didnâ??t posses the power to have *anybody* executed. They also point out that Calvin actually pleaded with the city council to reduce the penalty from burning at the stake to hanging. But I have yet to hear anybody of our generation say, â??Actually, Calvin was right. That wicked man *should* have been executed!â?? Well, I say it. He was not only a trinity denier, but he was intent on leading people away from the truth and poisoning their minds with his filthy blasphemy; and he was intent on slandering anybody who disagreed with him. He *should* have been executed. The rulers have been charged by God himself to be a minister of his vengeance upon the wicked. This is merely an *example* of what I am talking about. You will no doubt say, â??Ah, but that canâ??t be right!â?? And people of Calvinâ??s generation would say the opposite, for back then, (almost) *all* accepted the principle of the death penalty for grievous blasphemy and slander, as a *scriptural* principle. Canâ??t you see what is happening here? Its the same reason Baptists stay Baptists, and why Presbyterians stay Presbyterians. Its evil. And every last person who fails to consider this solemn fact is truly blind.To God alone be the glory. Amen.