As Requested - My first post

[Ekklesia]

Hello everyone,

As requested, this is my introductory post. It seems wise to encourage new posters to post in one location. It also seems wise to introduce new members to the community, and the community to new members, however I must say, I'm far keener to post on the Christ, or the Bible, or Biblical history, than I am to post on myself. Even so, introducing one's self at least once, is necessary so people know what's one's position is, even if the intent is to keep discussion away from one's identity or 'self' afterwards.

I have read the rules and will abide by them. They are clear, that we are to be plain about our beliefs. So here is my position:

I don't like labels for two reasons; First, the only two labels that seem to matter biblically, are 'sinner' or 'saved'. We are all sinners, but we are not all saved. The thief on the cross was not a Calvinist, a baptist, or even an Arminian, and nor am I. He was, however, both a sinner and saved, as am I. Second, Jesus also didn't seem to like labels [Mark 10:18]. Even so, I will use them to categorize myself for the sake of those who wish to understand roughly where my views lay. Anyone reading this post should realize that labels are only ever mere approximations however.

I decided to register with these forums to become a regular (at least for a while) after reading this page:
Identity

I object to it.

I am a worshiper of God's anointed son (Jesus), first and foremost. He has redeemed me with his blood. In a C.S. Lewis sense (mere Christianity), I am an orthodox Christian. In theological non-essentials, however, I hold a specific belief about history and prophetic fulfillment which is very different from most other Christians. Some would call me an identity Christian, or British-Israelite (with no affiliation to any particular movement). I believe that I am an Israelite of the House of Israel. I am not Jewish. Theologically, I do not distinguish between 'the Church' and 'Israel'.

I believe the difference between old and new covenant is merely one of degree (Jesus came to fulfill), and that the old covenant specifically points towards the Messiah. (In fact, I would argue, old covenant books were specifically 'canonized' because of their 'Messianic content', as Michael Rydelnik argues in his book 'The Messianic Hope'). I also believe God is without shade or variation, eternally consistent, and so is Jesus. This means I see coherences between all of God's covenants, rather than see differences.

The page that drew my attention above, did so, because it seems 'academic' and not from the perspective of someone who has actually engaged a person who holds these beliefs. I do hold these beliefs and so if they are to be rejected, should be done so after having been engaged. Although I have no formal education in theology, I can defend my beliefs. I know the bible well, and Hebrew and Greek well enough to exegete accurately. However, I am not here to convert anyone over to my way of thinking. I will, however defend my position in discussions as this site seeks for Christians to minister to Christians. What does this mean practically, in terms presenting or responding my position?

First it means that I don't automatically accept common positions held by many churches (or traditions), just as others will not accept my position either. However a few will find this highly offensive since it will seem to question 'beliefs' which should not be questioned, even if these positions are presented in the most patient or pleasant way. Taking this a step further, the presuppostion that many ecclesiastical traditions hold, I believe are in error; the product of eisegesis rather than exegesis. But truth, and Christ who is its embodiment, is the rock of offence over which we stumble. If my beliefs are in error, engaging them will weaken them. If my positions are true, contrary positions will fall. In either event, we are always blessed by discarding error and upholding truth.

Second, it means that although we may use the same words, we will likely mean them in different ways. I believe the bible is the final arbiter (in all debate), with Hebrew idioms, and meaning, taking precedent (even in Greek), over Latin or modern English. My use of words will be held accountable to the bible not to tradition. I will likewise hold others to the same standard. If you find my position, or my use of words offensive, ask me to justify it.

Finally, when engaging historical positions, I present history through the eye of prophecy rather than prophecy through the eyes of history. This means that my positions exhibit unusual confidence in its understanding of prophecy, though I don't claim to understand all prophecy perfectly. This seems to rub some people the wrong way. There are also periods in prophecy (and therefore history) that are not covered in the bible, and in those instances I will justify my position (as much as can be) with historical references consistent with what prophecy there is.

That said, I look forward to dialogue. Christ's standard expects me to love those who disagree with me, whether or not it is reciprocated. I will live to that standard, so help me God.

Ekklesia

[Rose of Shushan]

Hi ekklesia
thanks for telling us a bit about you and your beliefs.It looks as though we might be having some interesting discussions.

Quote:I am a worshiper of God's anointed son (Jesus), first and foremost. He has redeemed me with his blood. In a C.S. Lewis sense (mere Christianity), I am an orthodox Christian. In theological non-essentials, however, I hold a specific belief about history and prophetic fulfillment which is very different from most other Christians. Some would call me an identity Christian, or British-Israelite (with no affiliation to any particular movement). I believe that I am an Israelite of the House of Israel. I am not Jewish. Theologically, I do not distinguish between 'the Church' and 'Israel'.

I really do wonder how one cannot distinguish between the Church and Israel but maybe the answer lies in that as you said, not all of us use the same terms with the same meanings.
According to the Bible ,Israel are Jacob's descendants.The Church would be believers in Jesus and His New Covenant.Therefore, even though we may have overlap, the two are not one and the same.

Quote:I believe the difference between old and new covenant is merely one of degree (Jesus came to fulfill), and that the old covenant specifically points towards the Messiah. (In fact, I would argue, old covenant books were specifically 'canonized' because of their 'Messianic content', as Michael Rydelnik argues in his book 'The Messianic Hope'). I also believe God is without shade or variation, eternally consistent, and so is Jesus. This means I see coherences between all of God's covenants, rather than see differences.

I too can see coherency between the covenants but nevertheless, big differences.Otherwise why the need for different covenants.

[Mary]

(06-30-2011 12:57 AM)Mary Wrote:  

(06-24-2011 11:46 PM)Ekklesia Wrote:  Hello everyone,

As requested, this is my introductory post. It seems wise to encourage new posters to post in one location. It also seems wise to introduce new members to the community, and the community to new members, however I must say, I'm far keener to post on the Christ, or the Bible, or Biblical history, than I am to post on myself. Even so, introducing one's self at least once, is necessary so people know what's one's position is, even if the intent is to keep discussion away from one's identity or 'self' afterwards.

I have read the rules and will abide by them. They are clear, that we are to be plain about our beliefs. So here is my position:

I don't like labels for two reasons; First, the only two labels that seem to matter biblically, are 'sinner' or 'saved'. We are all sinners, but we are not all saved. The thief on the cross was not a Calvinist, a baptist, or even an Arminian, and nor am I. He was, however, both a sinner and saved, as am I. Second, Jesus also didn't seem to like labels [Mark 10:18]. Even so, I will use them to categorize myself for the sake of those who wish to understand roughly where my views lay. Anyone reading this post should realize that labels are only ever mere approximations however.

I decided to register with these forums to become a regular (at least for a while) after reading this page:
Identity

I object to it.

I am a worshiper of God's anointed son (Jesus), first and foremost. He has redeemed me with his blood. In a C.S. Lewis sense (mere Christianity), I am an orthodox Christian. In theological non-essentials, however, I hold a specific belief about history and prophetic fulfillment which is very different from most other Christians. Some would call me an identity Christian, or British-Israelite (with no affiliation to any particular movement). I believe that I am an Israelite of the House of Israel. I am not Jewish. Theologically, I do not distinguish between 'the Church' and 'Israel'.

I believe the difference between old and new covenant is merely one of degree (Jesus came to fulfill), and that the old covenant specifically points towards the Messiah. (In fact, I would argue, old covenant books were specifically 'canonized' because of their 'Messianic content', as Michael Rydelnik argues in his book 'The Messianic Hope'). I also believe God is without shade or variation, eternally consistent, and so is Jesus. This means I see coherences between all of God's covenants, rather than see differences.

The page that drew my attention above, did so, because it seems 'academic' and not from the perspective of someone who has actually engaged a person who holds these beliefs. I do hold these beliefs and so if they are to be rejected, should be done so after having been engaged. Although I have no formal education in theology, I can defend my beliefs. I know the bible well, and Hebrew and Greek well enough to exegete accurately. However, I am not here to convert anyone over to my way of thinking. I will, however defend my position in discussions as this site seeks for Christians to minister to Christians. What does this mean practically, in terms presenting or responding my position?

First it means that I don't automatically accept common positions held by many churches (or traditions), just as others will not accept my position either. However a few will find this highly offensive since it will seem to question 'beliefs' which should not be questioned, even if these positions are presented in the most patient or pleasant way. Taking this a step further, the presuppostion that many ecclesiastical traditions hold, I believe are in error; the product of eisegesis rather than exegesis. But truth, and Christ who is its embodiment, is the rock of offence over which we stumble. If my beliefs are in error, engaging them will weaken them. If my positions are true, contrary positions will fall. In either event, we are always blessed by discarding error and upholding truth.

Second, it means that although we may use the same words, we will likely mean them in different ways. I believe the bible is the final arbiter (in all debate), with Hebrew idioms, and meaning, taking precedent (even in Greek), over Latin or modern English. My use of words will be held accountable to the bible not to tradition. I will likewise hold others to the same standard. If you find my position, or my use of words offensive, ask me to justify it.

Finally, when engaging historical positions, I present history through the eye of prophecy rather than prophecy through the eyes of history. This means that my positions exhibit unusual confidence in its understanding of prophecy, though I don't claim to understand all prophecy perfectly. This seems to rub some people the wrong way. There are also periods in prophecy (and therefore history) that are not covered in the bible, and in those instances I will justify my position (as much as can be) with historical references consistent with what prophecy there is.

That said, I look forward to dialogue. Christ's standard expects me to love those who disagree with me, whether or not it is reciprocated. I will live to that standard, so help me God.

Ekklesia

Hi Ekklesia, Thank you for clearly stating where your beliefs lie. I would like to urge readers to research for themselves the beliefs of the "Christian Identity movement" . The same beliefs are found under Armstrongism, and the United Church of God. Ekklesia is promising a civil discussion, but I feel confident in saying that these will be difficult discussions. We will need to keep our eyes on Jesus, and keep each other in prayer. The bible is our standard. We will be taken down many rabbit trails of doubtful disputings about language and word meanings. There will be much confusion.

Vic has also posted her research into this movement on the site, and I encourage readers to read it.

[Vic]

HI,

I have copied this thread in it's entirety into a new section and thread here > Moved from Intro thread: Christian Identity & British Israelism
http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=855

Please direct all discussion on this to that thread. The intro is for welcoming members and where they can give a brief bio...

A reminder, newbies are not allowed to start threads or post links, and any of such are, or will be deleted. http://www.seekgod.ca/forum/showthread.php?tid=778

Ekklesia, since the conversation is well on it's way, enjoy! Keep in mind that while the Bible interprets Scripture, one must apply all Scriptures that might interpret that Scripture, including the passage or verse in context.