He'd have to get a real job yet live a life more dedicated to his faith than he ever
did as a preacher.
What one
did as preacher was continuous with what one did in religious education and pastoral counseling.
Not exact matches
So, I don't think Berkshire would work
as well if were just terribly shrewd but didn't have a little bit of what the
preacher said about my grandfather.
One big problem today is that the world is full of
preachers who don't have the guts to tell the truth and just give people their weekly feel good and sent them out into the world just
as lost
as they ever were.
What you, David, have touched on is the majority approach to trying to get people to believe
as the
preacher / believer / missionary
does.
I'm sure even though CNN doesn't seem to be covering this
as far
as i can tell on TV the propaganda machine at Fox will be all over it and in the most negative way imaginable complete with «color commentary» by the choir
preachers.
And you, David,
as a
preacher of the gospel of Christ — why
do you preach Jesus and the need for salvation to mankind?
And his apostles
do not come
as propagandists of a secular doctrine of salvation «with sublimity of words or of wisdom» (1 Cor 2:1), but
as «ministers of the Word» (Luke 1:2),
as his «witnesses to the ends of the earth» (Acts 1:8),
as preachers and teachers of the Gentiles in «faith and truth» (cf. 1 Tim 2:7).
As Flannery O'Connor said, whom I
did recently read in entire works, the southern
preacher prides himself on having learned nothing at all.)
Jesus gave us a clear picture of what that was all about
as did others say Peter for example 2 Peter 2:4 - 6: For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved to judgment; 5And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a
preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample to those that after should live ungodly;
Oh, by the way, the time after jesus or christ whatever you want to call this
preacher that
did good for the barbarians who lived 2000 years ago and then abandoned them and left them with what was supposed to be a time of enlightenment and spritual awaking but turned out to be almost
as bloodinga time period
as the old testament.
I was brutally murdered
as the
preachers didn't want to hear the truth about their life style.
I think I said
doing so was stealing and lying, but in any case I said it was wrong, and also pointless, since the congregation is not going to think less of the
preacher because he says, «
As John Smith says.»
Certainly it can
do nothing for the confidence or the credibility of
preachers who still invoke those norms in other areas of sexual behavior such
as chastity, adultery, and, not least, homosexuality.
Is that... wait... that old drunk turned
preacher... wait it is... and now because of how extreme his conversion was he is... he is... hating on all the others that can not convert to the same degree
as he
did... he's actually mad they seem to give less than him... he thinks they are ungrateful... let's go get drunk!
All those «prosperity gospel»
preachers rely on senile old ladies to keep sending in their pension and Social Security checks every month, but
as long
as the little old ladies don't escalate to sticking up convenience stores to support their evangelical habits, they'll never come to your attention.
Can you image what the actual poor, simple, wandering
preacher he supposedly acts
as the vicar for, would
do, if he saw all that excess?
The bland assurance that God's will was the same
as the political cause espoused by a
preacher did not go down with him.
No matter how much they say that the husband should love his wife
as Christ loves the church, they (the leading complementarian
preachers and scholars) are handing husbands the right to ignore truth when it is his wife who has it and he doesn't — that is, when his wife is right and he is wrong.
But the real explanation of our ineffectual preaching lies much deeper: far too many of us, far too much of the time,
do not recognize the terrible truth that
as preachers we are engaged in nothing other than the task of confronting our listeners with the very Word of God.
Preaching is frequently
done to an invisible congregation because the lights have been turned down; yet the facial expressions and bodily postures and movements of the congregation are communications in response to the
preacher, and he needs to see and note them
as at least partial guidance for his speaking.
The argument of this sermon was open to criticism on the ground that the
preacher seemed to take for granted a highly debatable view of the redemptive value of human suffering; yet he was calling attention to something very important, namely, that if we quote Baxter's words
as Professor Lampe has
done, we must not forget that the scope of Christ's suffering is limited.
What the
preacher has to
do is to make sure the congregation experiences the story
as fully
as possible — by giving the context of the story.
Therefore when we see «hard» rules, such
as do not kill, many
preachers easily put them aside if someone that we want to kill comes along.
Individual editors, writers,
preachers and others spoke up; some groups
did,
as causes or caucuses.
This Beecher
did as no other
preacher of his generation.
Fundamental to all barriers is the condition of general ambivalence that all human beings — and specifically, here,
preacher and congregation — experience in communication: that is,
as human beings, we both want to speak and
do not want to, and we both want to hear and are afraid to
do so.
Part of the preaching task is to overcome this ambivalence, and it can be
done only
as both
preacher and people accept the ambivalence and help each other with it.
On the one hand, by our historical amnesia we break our continuity with historic Christian faith
as did the liberals and, on the other, we accord to some
preachers a magisterial authority in interpreting Scripture not unlike Roman Catholics
do!
How
did the earliest
preachers proclaim Christ
as the Lord of life — not merely of exotic religion?
Applegate
does not argue that Beecher, in the midst of such tumultuous times, was especially innovative
as a
preacher, politician or theologian.
If I appear ignorant to you perhaps it's because I don't blindly follow the theocratic dogma, or accept the creative translations and cultural contexts that particular
preachers try to pass off
as the only «true» way to interpret the Bible.
Instead he was basically a normal American giving his ideas on religious belief, although he mixed politics into his speech such
as with Obama, many people
do this who are not currently holding office,
preachers especially.
Those who wrote them, being believers, theologians, and
preachers themselves, were seeking to make God and godliness known to their original envisaged audience, and the first question to be asked about each book has to
do with what its writer saw it
as saying and showing about God himself.
Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus
as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life
as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who
did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to
do these things let alone live and
do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it
does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because
preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those
preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,
Not every way of communication honors the truth: sometimes the manner in which something gets conveyed subverts reality,
as when a
preacher says all the right words about God's love but in a tone of voice and with a concluding string of «oughts» (therefore we ought to
do this and we ought to
do that) that makes you feel guiltier than ever.
The
preacher of the Reformation needs institutional empowerment, but ordination plays no such role in his accreditation
as do first of all the study and personal appropriation of Scriptures and especially of the gospel, and, secondly, the corresponding discipline of life.
Please read genesis where there is no where it is mentioned that there was another partner with the Lord God... don't you think if what you are saying is correct than it will be mentioned in the OT... or OT and NT are contradicting each other... i could show more from the bible itself... i think most of the follower of it
does not pay attention what to follow... they just follow blindly
as Catholic church
does not allow to have a copy of bible with the worshipper while they are at the church... they just have to be listening to the
preacher....
No amount of other reading
does me much good
as a
preacher unless I regularly read the Bible.
But
as the
preacher and priest organized these traditional functions in special ways so
does the pastoral director.
But despite the linguistic problems associated with this designation, it seems that the epithet «
preacher,» in the sense of «pastor,» is indeed an appropriate one, at least theologically.36 According to Duncan Macdonald, we have
done Qoheleth an injustice by viewing his work
as reflecting only a spirit of resignation and despair.
When all of humankind ceases to believe the nonsense that bubbles from the mouths of Sunday
preachers and finally seek the goodness of humanity which dwells in each one of us, it will be at that point we will begin to see ourselves
as equals in a quest to
do better then we have
done in 2000 years.
So wrong, there is NO evidence of evolution, but you must have faith that it happened
as your
preachers have said it
does.
Be that
as it may, Bulman makes a good case that a theology that leaves the millennium to doomsday
preachers is not
doing anyone a favor.
Yet there can be no excuse for that
preacher's failure to
do all that is in his or her power to bring men and women to «ripeness» in Christ,
as the old Ordinal phrased it, and thus to be brought into a way of living which is both enabled and enriched.
I don't know her name, but I remember she is equally a great
preacher as her dad.
As I listened to the two
preachers I was aware of the issues, but only now
do I see the connections, the significance and relationship of the themes and the scale of their influence on American society today.
Another
preacher preaching what ever goes is ok with Christianity... If your going to preach Christianity based on the Bible, then you might
as well forget gay marriages are ok... If you want to twist it around then thats up to you... Paul said, «The Berens were of noble charachter because they didn't believe what they heard, but they took what they heard and confirmed it with the Bible... So its like the Yen or Yang... Its either Gods church or Satans Church... Can't be any other way...
Do I hate gays, no... I have some very close friends that I have had for over 30 years that are gay, but I think they will be accountable for their life styles... Thats the thing about Christianity, we are held accountable, its not an everything goes belief... Its rules we have to follow... And rules we will be held accountable... So maybe this
preacher needs to start a dfferent faith or religion... One where there are no rules and where its people are not accountable for their actions...
Because images, in a book or in a sermon, are generally regarded
as decorative and hence optional in their bearing upon the principal form and content of the communication, the imaginative
preacher may have to endure such comments
as «His sermons don't seem theologically weighty» or «It was too interesting to have contained much truth», or perhaps such inverted compliments
as «I was much involved in your talk, or whatever it was.
But I didn't start praying this way until well after I left the TV
preachers behind... in those waning days before I walked away from the «church -
as - I - knew - it»....