Agreed.

same, agreed

I agree ^^

You still need to vote.

I vote that we keep things as it is. We are a Christian group, so I see no problem in having devotions and/or sermons on the main page. I understand that some people may not like it, But whats the point of having a Christian group if we don't help our brothers and sisters in Christ grow in faith. Why should we wash down our ministry just because a non Christian doesn't like what we are doing?
Jesus commands us to go and be fishers of men. I don't believe that separating/ breaking up a ministry is a good idea .

I agree with choice number 2. It sounds more organized. :3

Whats the point of having a Christian Group that doesn't minister to its own believers?
If people get offended by whats being said in a Christian Group (I.E they don't like devotionals) Nothing stops them from hitting the back button. I don't want this ministry to move just because people are offended by what the Bible says. This is a Christian based group. In my opinion, If you call yourself a Christian then you believe what the Bible says. Plain and simple. There is no picking a choosing what part of the Bible you want to believe in. You either believe in all of it, or none of it at all.

I don't want to see this Christian group turn into the wishy washy "well if its good for you its good for me" attitude like Christians that seem to permeate all around us.

There is no picking a choosing what part of the Bible you want to believe in. You either believe in all of it, or none of it at all.

Though I'm loath to start what I suspect could easily turn into a complicated doctrinal argument, I see this statement bandied around a lot, and I've never been entirely sure what to make of it. WHY is it always "all or none" when it comes to this issue? What specifically makes it impossible to take any position other than "all of it is perfect and true" or "all of it is false"? Why do you thin there's no other tenable, defensible way to look at the Old and New Testaments? I am genuinely curious. I have never heard this viewpoint explained.

The Bible is called the Word of God.

John 1:1
In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


This being said. God is perfect, which means the Word (Bible) is perfect. If the Bible isn't 100% true, then God isn't 100% true. Which then leads to this. If God is not 100% true, that means he is not perfect, and if that is true, Then Jesus isn't perfect. Which then means Jesus could not have died for our sins saved us. Which leads to the conclusion that we can't go to heaven. Or basically, if the Word is not 100% true then Christianity as a whole isn't true.

So either the Bible is 100% true or 100% false. So again, you cannot pick and choice what parts of the Bible you want to believe in.

Revelation 22:19 or right around there:
"And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."

In other words you cannot just remove parts of the Bible you do not like.

The Bible is called the Word of God.

By whom? That's the all-important question. That's a phrase that gets thrown around a lot, but its origins as a term for the Bible are less than clear to me. Does the Bible call itself the Word of God? There are only two instances in which the "Word of God" is referenced in scripture, to my recollection: during the opening of the Gospel of John and during Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. Let's take a look at the former instance first, paying particular attention to the verse you quoted (putting aside for the moment the sizable logical difficulty of supporting an argument about the validity of a questioned text by citing evidence FROM the questioned text). Here it is again in full context:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage.....mp;version=KJV

There is a great danger, I think, in quoting the Bible (or any other book, for that matter) out of context. It's the difference between the Bible saying "there is no God" and the Bible saying "a fool says in his heart 'there is no God'" after all. Context is everything. With that in mind, as you continue to read John chapter 1, you hit verse 14:

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Taking this with the other verse, in the context of the whole chapter (which is the way that it was really meant to be read, after all; the divisions of "chapter" and "verse" are artificial devices created later for easier study and not something the authors had in mind while writing), it's pretty clear that the Word in question is not the Bible, but Jesus (unless we're wanting to posit that the Bible is walking around incarnate somewhere!). This also fits with the phrasing "the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Many have made the claim the Bible is the infallible Word of God; far fewer would make the claim that the Bible IS God.

The only other instance I can think of where the phrase "Word of God" appears is in Luke 4:4, where Jesus responds to Satan's temptation to turn stones into bread with:

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."

This same conversation is phrased a little differently when it's brought up in Matthew 4:4. This time Jesus' response is:

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

In both cases, Jesus was quoting from Deuteronomy 8--http://www.biblegateway.com/passage.....ersion=KJV--in which God is chastening His people for their lack of faith in the promises He had made them, and reminding them of their dependence on Him. Which is actually a very different matter than Biblical inerrancy.

Again, these are just based off of my remembrances; it is entirely possible I'm forgetting other verses which touch on the subject, and if so, please feel free to remind me of them. But to the best of my knowledge, nowhere does the Bible ever refer to itself as the Word of God. Which makes sense if you think about it. Even if the Holy Spirit were speaking through the writers of the Old and New Testaments, guiding their pens to create words that would be true and meaningful for all future generations, the writers themselves would almost assuredly have had no idea He was doing that. In Paul's epistles, it's pretty clear that he only saw them as instructional letters to churches having problems, not as a timeless text that would be read for thousands of years (he even goes to pains to clarify, at least once, that one statement he makes is his own opinion and not Jesus'). How could they possibly affirm their works as the Word of God if they didn't know they were? And even if they WERE aware of it, how would they prove that it? Because they couldn't quote themselves on the matter. That would be like me saying "every word I write is true" and someone else asking "how can you prove that?" and me responding "because it says right here 'every word I write is true.'" The Bible can not, and does not, make these claims. Which is the irony of the entire concept of the Sola Scriptura--"by Scripture alone"--doctrine; "Sola Scriptura" is itself an extrabiblical doctrine.

So, again, the question remains: Who is it that determined the Bible is the Word of God? Until that's answered, the infallibility of Scripture remains, to my mind, an open question.

Of course, all that's beside the point to me anyway. The Bible doesn't have to be infallible in order to be valuable. Every word doesn't have to be perfect for it to contain truth. It does not have to be a verbatim record of Jesus' life and teachings for me to believe in Him. God and Christ are, to me, realities too big to be ignored, and are much too strong to be undone by one book turning out to be imperfect.

Wow, darn, that got long. Sorry, I can ramble on a bit when I'm talking about a topic like this. But see, it's doctrinal disagreements like this which strengthen my conviction that this group should be divided into two. This place is advertised as a "prayer chain," a place for people in hurt or need to ask brothers and sisters to remember them in their prayers. That's a very specific type of Christian ministry and, to my mind, is the last sort of place where disagreement and dissent should be stirred up. This place is about the one place where all believers are united: kneeling in prayer to God. Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, that's the one act we all share in common.

I guess I need to rephrase what I meant. If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and fully trust it. If the Bible is the Word of God, then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself. And that is sin.

2nd Timothy 3:15-17
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This clearly states that the Bible contains the Word of God, which is why the Bible is called the Word of God.

It should not surprise us that, no matter how the Bible is attacked, it always comes out unchanged and unscathed. After all, Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mark 13:31). After looking at the evidence, one can say without a doubt that, yes, the Bible is truly God’s Word.

That IS a much better Scripture passage to use for your argument. :) I could still debate the topic, but honestly, I don't like arguing about these things very much anymore. I think I still stick by my original opinion that these debates don't belong here...mainly because, as I said, prayer is the one thing we should all be able to agree on. After all, if you believe one of us is so doctrinally astray that we're in jeopardy, well, we'd need your prayers more than anyone else, wouldn't we?

It just seems...counterproductive to me to create a group devoted to prayer, and then create an environment that will drive people in need away from that.

I'm indifferent, to be honest. Number one is good because its what we've all come to know as the norm, but number two seems to be a bit more organized. I really don't mind what you do, so I'll keep my vote omitted from the count. <3

I vote for number one. I enjoy both aspects of this. To split them is to suggest that we can split Christianity. Why? Because we are suggesting that we cannot have prayer and ministry at the same time, that they have to be kept separate, as if they are opposed to each other in some way. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

I vote one.

Dominus tecum

I vote #2
It sounds more organized to me

I also vote 2. I joined this group for prayer support and to support others, and the sermons kinda removed the non-denominational aspect this place first had, and it is not really a secret that Wally often Rubs me the wrong way as i am sure I do to him sometimes.

I don't want to see the group split but I also know that people would rather complain then IGNORE or DELETE the sermon journals. The sermon journals need to be clearly marked that they are sermons. And if people still want to rant over them then point out the fact that they clearly CANNOT READ the journal title and, therefore, avoid the sermon journals.

And a warning note posted on the profile informing those visiting that sermons are posted as journals would be nice. Same with the other options. Let the people see that the 411 is a prayer request/praise report journal, etc... Ignorance is a tool of the enemy.

So my vote is to keep the group together.

I'm kinda on the fence, I dunno which to vote for.

You already know where I stand. 2 all the way.

Compassionate?

BULLSHIT!!!