Jump to content

NorrinRadd

Members
  • Content Count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

NorrinRadd last won the day on September 5

NorrinRadd had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Good

About NorrinRadd

  • Rank
    Newly Registered

Profile

  • Den
    Pentecostal
  • Gender
    Male
  • Relationship Status
    Single
  • Interests
    Sci-Fi, superheroes, toys of the '60s and'70s -- General nerd stuff.

Recent Profile Visitors

274 profile views
  1. Nitpick: The Subject line refers to the "less evil person," but the post itself is about POLICIES. This is not a complaint. IMO, we need to vote for the person we believe will promote the least-evil policies, and basically hold our noses in regard to their personal character. This is not a theocracy or theonomy, so I don't expect leaders to base policy decisions on Christian principles. There must be sound secular reasons to promote or oppose legislation. In that light, I do not have strong views on either gay marriage or drug legalization, in terms of public policy. I believe the Church should oppose both, but that is a separate matter. I lean toward the idea that drugs, including marijuana, are harmful, but pragmatically speaking, prohibition did not work well in regard to alcohol, so... Abortion is another matter. One need not be a Christian to oppose killing innocent defenseless humans. I never vote for a candidate that I know to not be Pro-Life. That rules out virtually all Democrats, some Republicans, and most Libertarians (the party does not call itself "Pro-Choice," but their official stated position is exactly that, while eschewing the label). Honestly, even voting for most supposedly "Pro-Life" candidates is a huge moral compromise, since most of them are officially ok with killing babies conceived by rape or incest, or with leaving it up to individual States to determine when killing babies is ok.
  2. -- I have heard of Todd Bentley, but have never seen him in action. -- I have heard Benny Hinn speak a few times, but have not heard him preach. I have seen some clips of him in action, but never more than a few minutes. -- My experience with Faith believers is that they are more likely to read, memorize, and quote Scripture than are believers from "mainline" churches. -- Most of my direct experience with Faith believers was ca. mid-'80s to mid-'90s, and mostly in churches of 200 or fewer. I have not kept up with their beliefs and practices in many years. -- Part of the initial appeal of the Faith churches I attended and visited was that their contemporary worship style was familiar to me from my college days. That was the first "church" environment I'd known. I still prefer that style, as it seems to me to be in keeping with Psa. 149-150, and therefore is *at least* as "Biblical" as more staid, "traditional" services. -- Another part of the appeal was that Faith churches seemed to take seriously and try to implement passages of Scripture that other churches ignored. -- Most of us would consider Faith preachers' hermeneutics and proof-texting to be faulty; but honestly, some of it does now seem to me not much different from the way NT authors handled OT passages. And I believe the old, "Well they were Apostles, so they were allowed to do that!" is way too glib. -- Most of the Faith people I've encountered have been kind, generous, and more or less... Ned Flanders-y. -- I do not know why it appeals to anyone else. I know only my own experiences, and why it initially appealed to me. -- Faith churches consider themselves non-liturgical and non-traditional, but their services (at least as of 30 years ago) follow a relatively consistent format: * Opening music as the congregants... congregate. * "Praise" (fast-tempo celebratory) music, possibly with some people dancing in the aisles. * "Worship" (slow-tempo reverent) music, possibly with some people kneeling in the aisles. * Pause (occasionally called the "Holy Ghost Hush," to allow the Holy Spirit to try to sneak in a few words by prophecy and tongues and interpretation, or much more rarely, a "word of knowledge," assuming one uses the conventional Charismatic definitions of those terms) * More singing (variable tempo) * Offering * "Greet a few people!" * Sermon (about 45 minutes; there will be multiple citations of Scripture) * Worship music * Altar call (for salvation, healing, whatever) -- May be few or many responding. Several will probably "fall under the power." Some may experience "laughing in the Spirit" or being "drunk in the Spirit." * Dismissal (If altar ministry is ongoing, dismissal will be silent or with "worship" music. If altar ministry is concluded, dismissal will probably be with "praise" music.) * Total time a little over 90 minutes. ------------------------------------------------- I can add a big honkin' biographical account for perhaps more context, if you wish. I don't know whether that would be worthwhile or not.
  3. I had many issues with Curtis. The character was the superhero "Mr. Terrific," hence his T-shaped mask. In the comics, he was not a gay nerd with marginal physical abilities; rather, he was a polymath genius, super-rich inventor, and Olympic decathlete who had a friendly rivalry with Batman. They totally wrecked the TV version, because (1) he had to be a feeble sidekick for Arrow, and (2) gotta be all gay all day. Similarly with "Mon-El" on Supergirl. His powers *should* have been identical to hers, but it was her show, so he had to be powered way down. (Among way too many other changes to the character.)
  4. It's frustrating that my Pentecostal friends tend to like Joel Osteen or Joseph Prince (I keep wanting to call that mook "Freddy Prinze," because to me he resembles him). I prefer reading and listening to Gordon Fee, Ben Witherington, and Craig Keener. Not a ton of common ground, even though all are practicing Charismatics or Pentecostals.
  5. I resonate with a lot of this, and yet none of it is a precise match for me. I was raised nominally Lutheran (ELCA), but I and my immediate family were almost completely non-practicing. (My paternal grandmother was more faithful, and my maternal aunt and cousins were and are pretty committed.) I was "born again" at college in early 1980, a few months before turning 20, and soon started attending a (rare, I learned later) Charismatic campus branch of the C&MA. My "home" C&MA church was "normal" (i.e. non-Charismatic). In early 1984, I was "filled with the Spirit" and began attending the Full Gospel (according to the sign out front) or Pentecostal church several of my friends attended. About ten years later, I became disenchanted with the "Faith" and "Toronto" stuff and left. These days I still call myself "Pentecostal," even though I disagree with some of the traditional "Pentecostal distinctives." (I figure it's good enough for Gordon Fee, so it's good enough for me.) I wouldn't go that far, but I do think many apologists come across as worshiping "reason" and theological "systems." The anti-intellectualism of the "run of the mill" Pentecostal is disheartening. "A Ph. D. is just a post-hole digger." To some extent it's understandable. The early Pentecostals were not erudite trained theologians, and were from the "wrong side of the tracks." They got plenty of mockery from "traditional" Christians. A lot of the current generation remains suspicious of, and averse to, the segments of the Church that has always despised them, or that they perceive as such. I could never encourage a seeker to avoid Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. A church with decent doctrine overall but poor theology and no practice of the "gifts" is to me no better than a church with some goofy theology but decent practice of the gifts. I hesitate to make such a judgment about tongues-speaking, no matter how it "sounds" to me, because Paul never did so. Even though the gift was being misused and over-used, he never suggested any of those doing so were fakers. I think it's interesting that prophecy, and secondarily tongues-praying, were, AFAIK, the only gifts Paul explicitly suggested were intended for all believers. I agree that it is not the "initial physical evidence," as it is often expressed. FWIW, I also believe "baptism in the Spirit" as Pentecostals use the term is not consistent with the way the term is used in the Gospels and in 1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 1-2 does lean to the Pentecostal view, and Acts 10-11 is... inconvenient.
  6. Besides the constant price increases, one reason I stopped collecting comics over 30 years ago was the gayification occurring even then. The "all gay, all day" of most of the DC "Arrowverse" shows on CW has pretty much driven me away from them, too. But this is the Age of Woke and SJ, so I don't expect gaying up the MCU will harm the franchise. Certainly not enough to bother them.
  7. If you're looking for a Bible that's "pro-Pentecostal" or at least not "Pente-hostile," I suspect MacArthur would not be a good choice. The Spirit-Filled Life Bible and the Life in the Spirit Study Bible (formerly Full Life Study Bible) are, I believe, relatively "mainstream" Pentecostal-oriented study Bibles. I would recommend *against* the Kenneth Hagin Legacy Bible, the Kenneth Copeland Reference Bible, the Word Study Bible (NOT to be confused with the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible), and the Dake Bible. All of those pollute normal Pentecostal theology with "Word-Faith" teachings, and (unless recent revisions have changed things) the Dake Bible supports racism. I don't care for study Bibles that ham-fistedly advocate for a particular theological view. But I *do* appreciate notes on language, translation issues, and cultural background. With that in mind, two of my favorite study Bibles are the NET Bible (full notes version) and the Cultural Backgrounds Bible. When I'm in church listening to a preacher, I usually don't want a Bible with a ton of notes. In that setting, I probably want my Contemporary Comparative Side by Side Bible. It has virtually no study aids, including book intros. (It does have a few brief translation notes and maybe some cross-references.) In general, I like to be able to compare different translations, and in particular, I like to be able to see if a preacher is making too much of a particular bit of wording. With a parallel Bible, I'm guaranteed to have at least one translation *different* from the one the preacher is using; with this particular eye-and-biceps-straining one, I have at least three.
  8. He *could* have not released them early, but that would probably have accomplished nothing good, and would have created hard feelings.
  9. I'm pleased to see this informative and irenic contribution from Grudem. I tend to be a bit on guard when hearing from him, as he is Reformed and Complementarian, and I am... neither. :-) I recall at one point he was affiliated with the Vineyard, and wrote some articles defending some of their controversial beliefs and practices. I believe he has since parted ways with them (over the issue of ordaining women, IIRC).
  10. I was in a "Faith" church for roughly ten years, ca. mid-'80s to mid-'90s. By far my favorite was Dad Hagin, but I did like Cope, Tilton, John Osteen (Joel's dad), Norvel Hayes, Charles Capps, etc. But I got over it. 🙂
  11. If we're concerned about context in Scripture, we should pay attention to context here also. He is going well beyond saying he "won't ask for specific amounts of money." I'm pleased with everything I heard in that clip. I hope the Lord leads him to "bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance." Following the description of love in 1 Cor. 13, I want to "trust" and "keep no record of wrongs." But I don't know if it's wise to totally ignore the fact that he has a long track record of Fake Repenting, as documented here and here.
  12. Virtually everything we can say will be speculative. Regarding a, c, and d -- Jesus Himself did not make any direct reference to food laws. The "all foods are clean" statement was a parenthetical statement by the author, presumably Mark, some years after the fact. If we accept the text as inspired, we accept his interpretation of the events as inspired. Regarding b -- I assume Jesus continued to be Torah observant, although at the very least reinterpreting His final Passover meal as the ceremonial meal inaugurating and commemorating the New Covenant. Regarding a2 -- Tradition holds that Mark was a disciple of Peter, which makes the question even more interesting. My "take" is that Peter (and possibly the other disciples as well) had not immediately grasped the full significance of Jesus's teaching in Mark 7. The events in Acts 10-11 may have helped bring the point home to him. IMO, the controversy Paul alludes to in Gal. 2 suggests it was something he continued to wrestle with. Regarding your conclusion -- I don't believe the Torah is "binding" on *anyone* who is "in Christ," including believing Jews. The choice of whether to continue to practice as a means of cultural identity and solidarity is completely a matter of individual preference and conscience.
  13. Good. It's pointless. Whether or not that is a valid inference from the change of Covenants, we have the *explicit* statements of Paul that "Love your neighbor" fulfills the entire Law (Rom. 13 and Gal. 5); we have his teachings of liberty in regard to special days (where there is no hint that he excludes Sabbaths) in Rom. 14; we have his dismay that the Galatians had returned to observing special days (Gal. 4), again with no hint that he excluded Sabbaths; we have his forceful exhortations to the Colossians (ch. 2) to not yield to those who would impose the law of "Don't touch that! Don't taste that!" or who would pass judgment regarding Sabbath observance. Good, because you're not going to move many of us, especially when we see in Heb. 7 that there is also a change of LAW. The priesthood changed. The law changed (ch. 7). The Mosaic Covenant was found to be obsolete and faulty, and was replaced (ch. 8). It is frankly silly to read all that was said in the first eight chapters, and how emphatically it was said, and then decide that ch. 9 and 10 limit the change to only a few ceremonial trappings. Good, because you're not going to convince many of us that Jesus did not do away with the food laws in Mark 7:19, even before the change of Covenants had been inaugurated with the Covenant Meal. You are focusing on that one word "dogma" (decrees, ordinances), ignoring the context, which shows that what was removed was the entire list of broken rules -- "all your transgressions." Also, as I'm sure has been noted somewhere in this thread, there is the matter of Eph. 2:15, which says He nullified the Commandments as well as the decrees/ordinances. And yes, Hebrews is very useful. Many of us *have* read it, and have come to an understanding quite unlike yours.
  14. That site is hilarious! It's almost as good as the Babylon Bee, except the Bee is self-aware enough to realize it's a satire site.
  15. I'm sure I'm not totally consistent in this or anything else, but I *generally* do not abbreviate "Old Covenant" and "New Covenant." I know the author of Hebrews intentionally plays on two different senses of "diatheke," but in most cases I prefer to keep them distinct. When I'm talking about the divisions of the Christian Bible, I use OT and NT. When I'm talking about the relationship with God, I use Old Covenant (or more often, "Obsolete Covenant") and New Covenant, and don't abbreviate. It matters to me that some important things have changed between the Old and the New.
×
×
  • Create New...