(Part 2) Best products from r/TrueChristian

First of all, thanks for enduring the conversation with me. I think its both fun and important.


> It greatly pleases me that you choose option 2

We're on the same page here. Option 1 isn't a real option in my mind.

> You say we are unable to merit our own salvation, yet before that sentence ends you say our cooperation is required.

Like Paul, I'm saying that we are unable to merit our own salvation apart from grace. That is, apart from Christ doing so in us. To be clear, I'm not a pelagian: grace is necessary in my view.

> Cooperation in of itself requires two parties to work together, synergism, salvation merited by God and man.

Right. This is exactly what makes my account of soteriology incarnational. If it was purely one sided, and not some kind of give-and-take, the incarnation would not have made much sense. Even many protestant scripture scholars recognize the obligation aspect of "gift"/grace in the New Testament. For a very thorough treatment, see Paul and the Gift by John Barclay. He masterfully shows that grace/gift is not without obligation of cooperation on the part of the believer.

Ultimately, if we are to reconcile James with Paul (or Matthew with Paul, for that matter), claiming that our deeds have no bearing on our salvation is not a viable way to do so. James is explicit and clear: we are justified by our works. Paul, then, can be more clearly understood as talking about works in three ways (depending on the context):

• Works of the Law- Generally, this is a phrase in reference to the Mosaic ceremonial works. It is mainly the visible expressions of Jewish life and identity, like circumcision, dietary regulations, purity codes, Sabbath observance, and the liturgical calendar of Old Covenant feasts, that Paul contrasts with faith. These are the ritual distinctives that set Jews apart from Gentiles in the Hellenistic world of the first century. This issue consistently surfaces when Paul is talking about the salvation of Jews and Gentiles. From the wider context of Romans and Galatians, Paul stresses the irrelevance of ceremonial rites like circumcision (Rom 2:25–29; 3:30; 4:9–12; Gal 2:3; 5:2–12; 6:12–15), dietary issues (Rom 14:1–23; Gal 2:11–14), and feast-day observances (Rom 14:5–6; Gal 4:10). There is some corroborating evidence for this view in the Dead Sea Scrolls, where the Hebrew equivalent of “works of the law” (ma’ase hat torah) turns up in a context where laws concerning purity, sacrifice, festivals, and foods are the central issues of discussion (scroll fragment 4QMMT).
  
  
• Good Works Done Apart from Grace- Paul likewise says that these works cannot save us. James wouldn't disagree at all; and neither would I. A good example of this usage is Ephesians 2.
  
  
• Christ Doing Works of Love in and through Us- Here is where Paul and James (and Matthew) overlap. To deny the efficacy of these works is to throw James out entirely. Paul speaks of these works in places like Galatians 2:19-20, Philippians 2:12-16; but it is especially in James and Matthew where we find the true importance of doing these works. This is why Paul says that Charity is more important than faith in 1 Corinthians 13. Surely, if love (i.e. charitable works) were not efficacious for our salvation in any way, 1 Corinthians 13 wouldn't make any sense. Faith would be far more important than love. And yet the opposite is true.
  If you read Matthew apart from the rest of the New Testament you'd probably be closer to pelagianism than Sola Fide. I'm not saying Matthew is pelagian (he's certainly not), but that he emphasizes the importance of loving works for our salvation with little regard to intellectual faith. Ultimately, the best reconciliation between Paul, Matthew, and James is one where Pauline faith includes matthean works of love by its very definition. It is not purely intellectual faith. With that definition of faith (the New Testament's definition), we could say "faith alone." But with the modern (merely intellectual) definition of faith, there are many contradictions.
  
  
  **
  
  > but the works themselves did/do nothing for the salvation of people.
  
  That is in direct contradiction with the words on the page in James 2. I'm having a hard time seeing how that helps to reconcile them.
  
  > The most compelling evidence is this: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Ephesians‬ ‭2:8-10‬ ‭ESV‬‬).
  
  This is perfectly consistent with my above explanation. Grace saves us by (in part) enabling us to be his "workmanship," to walk in those good works which God prepared beforehand. There is no room for boasting because any good works we do are not our own, they are God working in and through us. Boasting wouldn't make sense, because it is Christ through the gift of grace who does them, not us.
  
  > Here it's plain to see that the good works we do are prepared by God, not ourselves. Our own good works are not even our own, they are God's!
  
  This is exactly my point. God's works are salvific. The fact that he does them in and through us does not disqualify those works. He is the one doing them, even if its through us. That is why Paul can "work out" his "salvation." That's why Matthew 25 centers our salvation on whether we cooperated with grace. That's why James can say that we are justified by works.*
  
  
  
  
  

Bible Reading:

Most important thing when choosing a Bible: pick the one you'll read. It doesn't matter if you prefer it because of how the cover makes you feel, if that will make you read it, then that's fine.

Most issues with translations only kick in when you find passages that are hard to understand and you want a sense of what the original writer was saying. Then something like the NLT may be less useful, because it paraphrases more. The one thing I'd say is that I wouldn't recommend a full paraphrase version like The Message, because it has a lot of the writer's own interpretation. It has its value, but not for regular study.

If you want an easy to access but still good for Bible study translation, then the NIV is a widely used version. With your background in mind, howevr, the ESV might be usable for you. It's a widely respected translation that is considered good for serious study because it gets closer to the original language than the NIV, with some sacrifice for ease of reading. It's not something I'd necessarily recommend for someone new to Christianity, but given that you grew up in a Christian family, you might not find the vocabulary as daunting.

Regarding annotations: feel free to skip them. They are intended to aid understanding, but are not part of God's word. Therefore they are not essential reading, although if you want help understanding a passage they may be useful. If you find the length of the Bible challenging, you may want to consider a Bible reading plan - it will give you a structured approach that just makes it all feel a bit more manageable. If you want to manage the whole thing in a year (4 chapters a day), then try For The Love of God by Don Carson. If that's too much you could give one of these a try. One popular approach is to just alternate reading Old Testament and New Testament books (e.g. read through Matthew, then Genesis, then Mark, then Exodus etc), and then, because the New Testament is shorter, starting over while you go through the 2nd half of the Old Testament. That one's good because it doesn't matter how much you read each day to fit the plan. But reading plans are just a tool, if you want to just sit and read, that's also great, reading whole books in one go has its benefits even. Whatever works for you.

Other resources:

There are many, many Christian books available. But if you want a couple of easy recommendations try:

• The Cross-Centered Life by CJ Mahaney, it's super short but nails the essentials of the Christian life. Likewise Humility: True Greatness by the same author, also short.
  
  
• Mere Christianity by CS Lewis - it's a good one for the atheist mindset, as CS Lewis was very talented at explaining Christian ideas in a way that makes logical and philosophical sense.
  
  
• Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith by Mike Reeves - I confess I haven't read this one myself, but I love the author and I've heard him speak on this topic, and it really opened my eyes to explain the Trinity, which is one of the most mind-bending Christian teachings, yet it changes everything in an amazing way. Really worth checking out. Can also send you a link to his talks on it, if you prefer an audio option. He does some great church history stuff that warms my heart as well. We can learn a lot from those who came before us, and can shed light on our struggles and encourage us with their wisdom.

It's normal as a teenager because you are beginning to develop your own personality, character, and beliefs apart from other people. This developing independence prepares you for adulthood. This leads you to start questioning your parents, and naturally to the questioning of other authoritative figures in your life.

You do this because on the surface, you see what your parents believe in but you did not see how they arrived at those conclusions either from their thought process, applied logic, or personal experiences. They have had most of their lives to consider other options and vet each one, finally categorizing them as truth or falsehoods.

You also are probably more tech savvy than your parents and have had access to the internet longer than they have, an instant source for most knowledge today. You have to understand that in order the answer a question, your parents and older people had to go to the library and read through a huge book to find that one paragraph they needed about a topic. Now it’s a click of a button.

Because of this, you have probably been right about certain topics which levels the playing field a little more as opposed to the traditional model of them knowing more and being teachers, making you a bit more skeptical. This naturally carries over into other areas including religion.

There is also huge trend in the rise of atheism among young adults nowadays so this will probably have an effect on you too in terms of peer pressure, especially if you spend more time online. Many of them will be questioning the same things you are but not giving Christianity a fair chance. They resort to things like ridicule and fail to be logically consistent. Their intellectual arrogance stops intellectual honesty and curiosity. Much ink has been spilled over the years defending Christianity called Apologetics. Many of the contradictions, heresies, or questions people have brought against Christianity have been answered already but many people choose to engage in confirmation bias or have not actively sought out dissenting opinions.

Essentially, you need to make God "your own" belief now and not just believe in Him because other people like your parents do. You must be fully convinced in your own heart that God is Sovereign above all and that you must have faith in Him no matter what, even if it doesn't make sense to you. This is exactly what Abraham had when God asked Him to sacrifice his son. Hebrews 11 talks more about the faith of the church forefathers.. It really helps to study theology as this puts everything into perspective. It’s the more mature side of Christianity that is much more complex than what you are usually taught growing up in the church from child to teen.

I would suggest checking out GotQuestions.org, Apologetics Press, God and Science, and CARM. Many of the early church leaders like Tertullian and St. Augustine and modern day Christians like C.S. Lewis have some great things to say as well in defense of the faith. I would also invest in the Life Application Study Bible as it has footnotes for almost every verse and gives a ton of great historical, archaeological, and theological context (more so than any other Bible today).

Above all, I would be careful about drawing conclusions about God and trying to judge Him through man's morality/mindset. This is difficult because measuring the divine through man is impossible. The finite cannot measure the infinite. Doing so always leads unfortunately to false assumptions and hasty projections as we only see a part of the picture.

Remember what is written:

>Isaiah 55:9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

>Isaiah 40:28 "Why do you complain, Jacob? Why do you say, Israel, 'My way is hidden from the Lord; my cause is disregarded by my God'? Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom."

>Proverbs 3:5-6 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight."

>James 1:5-8 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you. But when you ask, you must believe and not doubt, because the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord. Such a person is double-minded and unstable in all they do.

Remember, God chose the foolish things of this world to shame the wise.

>1 Corinthians 1:20-25 "Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."

Lastly I give you a warning from my own experiences (I am now 24). I backslid from God for a bit throughout high school and early college. I started making all these conclusions about God and how He thought, using my own logic and basing it off of my faith growing up (I had assumed I had learned everything there is to Christianity but most churches don’t go into theology when you are younger). I assumed I had Christianity figured out, but when one night I started reading the Bible again, I happened upon quite a few verses that I had no idea existed. These verses directly contradicted the assumptions of God and His nature that I had built up in my mind. It really humbled me and made me curious about if I had gotten other things wrong too. As I continued to read the Bible, a completely different narrative opened up before me and a multi-layered understanding that was more comprehensive from the Christianity of my childhood. I essentially just had bad theology, which came from my own hypothesizing about God, with no real foundation. Try to avoid this and stay in the Word. I myself have barely scratched the surface of all there is to understand and know.

Please take notice of the reply that follows this for a continuation of my response.

I appreciate your kind approach and apparent openness to persuasion, which motivated me to write this. I hope you'll find it worthwhile. I'll try to start simply:

What is a philosophical argument? Think of it as a mechanism for deriving implications from certain observations of the natural world. If, from these, we arrive at theological implications, they are just as significant as any other information (say, from science...which is built upon philosophy anyhow) in that they are explanatory and represent an advance in knowledge. There has been a considerable change in the Anglo-American collegiate realm regarding Christian theism, especially in philosophy departments. The secularization of academia today was, in large part, due to the privatization of Christian institutions and advances in observational astronomy. The former because Christians left colleges for their own academic strongholds, and the latter because we began to see what had previously been thought of as astrological influences and personifications as what they really are: distant spheres of (hydrogen) gas (which should stop no one from considering Christianity, in light of the fact that our belief system distinguishes the radically contingent universe from a God who exists by the necessity of His own nature).

Since the late 1900s we have done away with positivism, and its attendant verification principle (the idea that only that which can be verified through the senses is true...an idea which cannot be verified through the senses. It's positively self- defeating, meaning that it is self-referentially incoherent) and the works of philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga (the most contributive philosopher of religion in recent years...before he retired he was the president of the American Philosophical Association and the Society of Christian Philosophers) in revamping classical arguments for God's existence (such as the Ontological Argument, which has now become an exercise in modal logic), refuting the argument for atheism from the existence of evil in both its logical and probabilistic forms, and defending the position that belief in God is an epistemologically warranted metaphysical initiative (meaning that, in the absence of a defeater for Christian theism, it qualifies as a belief that can be held without reference to anything in reality, wholly substantiated by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit). The following are some arguments for the existence of God that I have so far studied and found compelling, and consider them in cumulation as indicative of the supernatural and of an orthodoxly conceived monotheistic God or of whatever other theologically significant conclusion their exponents aspire to establish:

A Leibnizian Formulation of the Argument from Contingency (God best explains the universe's being existent rather than not), Arguments from our Moral Experience (we perceive an objective realm of moral values and duties that could not otherwise exist without God), from the coherency of the concept of God (the idea of God should not make sense unless He actually does exist. It's remarkable that it would be a rational idea. This is more popularly known as the Ontological argument, and I suggest you look into it as it is defended by William Lane Craig for an approachable start to studying it), from the probable origin of the universe (from which one may deduce a personal cause), from reason (One version would go like this: evolution selects on phenotypes, and by extension, on survival value, not truth value. Thus, we have a defeater for naturalism by its invalidation of our cognitive faculties, rendering the naturalistic conclusion invalid...however, this version is a combination of multiple arguments iferring from the existence of the reasoning process justification for rejecting naturalism in favor of a theistic alternative), from the inability for non-theism to correspond to one's participation in reality ((the consequences to atheism are so great that it seems we are forced, by our nature, to worship God. But to hold atheism is to not recognize God, conversely, holding theism is to recognize (worship) God. From a Christian perspective, should it surprise us that to draw away from the Source of Life in our greatest purpose--which would be to worship God AKA hold (Christian) theism--is to find a life unlivable?)), from religious experience, the historically and historiographically corroborated resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, from intentional states of consciousness, the phycological relevance of neurological confluence, etc. (see that paper on the argument from reason), from the "fine tuning" of initial cosmological and subsequent universal conditions for the development of intelligent life, from the applicability of mathematics to the physical world, from Certain Aspects of the Laws of Nature and more. (If ever you were to take an interest in Aristotelian metaphysics, Aquinas by Edward Feser would be a great introduction to Thomas Aquinas's "Five Ways" which you should certainly at least look into his blog for the basics. I'll recommend that you start with this post, patiently read to get the most out of it. As an analytic philosopher that became a Christian from atheism after studying Thomism, I think you'll find he argues from a higher standard, endeavoring to convince not Christians but atheists as adamant as he was)...you'll find further recommended reading on many of those arguments listed after their respective reference sections.

On Intelligent Design--Here's what I think...there's a a great deal of confusion regarding inferences from instantiations of biological complexity to an Intelligent Source. Many equate this with Young Earth Creationism, when it's entirely different. Some stop when they fail to see how it categorizes as science (it doesn't, and that's not what matters anyway). Here you will find arguments such as that from the existence of consciousness, the first cell of life, irreducible complexity, the linguistic properties of DNA, and the like. Antony Flew would be a good example of a world-famous atheist turned theist over these sorts of arguments from apparent design/teleology (the equivalent to Dawkins from the last generation however, but the difference would be in his having an informed opinion and philosophical excellence, in addition to his desire for meaningful discourse).

I think an honest assessment of each of these will show that they at each at least raise the probability that God exists on their own. Now, I want to guard against what keeps many from fully seeing the force behind natural theology: they are meant to be taken cumulatively, so that together they can raise the probability of theism's truth value such that it is rational to lend credence to it.

I get this a lot: "if there were evidence for Christianity, then everyone would be a Christian. Therefore, Christianity is not substantiated." I hope you can see why this should not be taken seriously. Firstly, it could be said of any worldview. If there is something evidently true on atheism, why isn't everyone an atheist? And so, if there truly is something rationally compelling about Christianity, I believe you will find it by earnestly seeking Christ where many others have found it (I've described some of these authentications below). Furthermore, college study is oriented towards specialization, which is decided by one's interests.

As for Christian evidences, I was originally convinced of Christianity by simply reading the Bible. If you are interested in pursuing truth, rather than arguments (which bear the inherently biased objective of discerning who's right rather than what's right) then I highly recommend that you seek God where He can be found: in His word, from which faith is derived, as it appears in the actions and words of Christians, and in the text itself. I think you'll find, in the person of Jesus Christ, that He knows us too well, and loves us far too much, to not be our Father. By this, I mean that there is something so true about Christianity: it makes too much sense. And way too much sense out of life and the world. As C.S. Lewis said, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." After I earnestly sought God for the first time, like (I should hope) David ("a man after His own heart"), I found that the scales fell from my eyes, like Paul, and I gained an entirely new perspective of the world and was changed to so great an extent in ways that I can only regard as supernatural.

Romans 8: 1-2

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you[a] free from the law of sin and death.

That being said, it's definitely coming from the enemy of your soul.

Here's a book that helped me deal with not only thoughts and feelings that weren't from God Himself, but on other issues surrounding where and why those thoughts/ images/ feelings could be rooted in.

https://www.amazon.com/Soul-Care-Transformational-Principles-Healthy-ebook/dp/B01G4TEB2I

Holy Spirit, we welcome You. Please bless this one with the gift of Your light, given in Your love for us and desire to want to heal, free, deliver us, and then fill us with Your Holy Spirit that we may live our lives as You've intended it.

King Jesus, you break every chain. We ask that You cover this one with Your loving kindness, sing a song over this one, and that any enemy agendas and presence would be kicked out by Your word, as You journey with this one through healing, freedom, deliverance, that the light would be a blessing, because you do not condemn nor judge nor punish us, because You became the punishment for us on our behalf, that we may have life and have it to the full.

Please send this one holy, wise, humble, loving, kind, equipped, and obedient people who can journey with this one through inner healing.

In Jesus's name we pray: amen.

My pastor said something great: "your head should be the safest place for you." Praying it become exactly as such, as God intended for us! He loves you!

1. While aggelos is a fair transliteration of άγγελος I would opt for the phonetic pronunciation angelos; it's a bit more familiar to the English word and faithfully represents how it would have been spoken. Also, I'm not sure if this is possible on your blog but you should italicize Greek words written in the English alphabet. Also, you should make a standard, either write words in Greek or give a transliteration; don't do both. These are silly formatting issues that would make it more visually appealing.
   
   
2. If you could add a copy of BDAG that would be a great reference to talk about the nuance of Greek words. While wikitionary gives you a useful parse that you run with BDAG will explain how often that parse is used in the biblical text. Also, I think your analysis of the word in general needs some work. You appeal to a pericope from John that doesn't include genea at all. Also, you don't mention how in Matthew's gospel every other use of genea, excluding the genealogy prologue, is clearly a reference to the literal generations of people during Jesus' ministry (See Matt. 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17). Your appeal to other biblical passages and theur use of genea is also difficult when you don't engage the issue of how the author consistently uses the word. While theologically we may believe the Bible to be inspired by God we should also recognize that it was penned by men who had their own nuanced writing style.
   
   

3. I somewhat like what you're saying and how you're taking a theological approach to interpretation. However, is there any evidence that directly links this passage to the theological concept of after-life and resurrection? Honestly, to use an analogy from Star Wars, your argument seems like Obi-Wan's arguement for misleading Luke about Darth Vader/Anakin, "It's true from a certain point of view." If you can you should make that point of view as explicit as possible. If such an explicit understanding can't be explained in the primary text than you should at least address what some critiques of your theory would be.
   
   
4. Another thing I appreciate is that you use some historic Christian scholars to emphasize your arguement, but it feels like cherry picking. I admit I honestly don't know the answer to this, but are commentators earlier than Chrysostom who provide a similar interpretation? How about between Chrysostom and Theophylact? You don't need to quote everyone but if you indirectly reference other sources as giving similar interpretations it would strengthen your arguement.
   
   
5. Similar idea as in number 3, if you think appealing to the Old Testament use of the word generation is important to understanding this passage is there textual support? You can say that Matthew is departing from his patterned use of genea and appealing to an understanding of 'generation' from the Hebrew Bible, but if you don't have evidence to back that claim it's hard to be convinced.
   
   Overall, I like what you have to say I just wish you were saying it better. There's a journal article coming out sometime either this year or next that is similar to yours. I believe it's the Journal of Biblical Literature, but I'm not certain. If you're interested I'll double check. The author has a similar dislike for N.T. Wright and R.T. France's understanding of the passage, but goes in a bit of a different direction. The biggest thing is that he appeals to the Hebrew Bible to explain 'generation', and uses solid evidence to link this passage to the Hebrew Bible.
   
   I'd just like to say, good job on dealing with a difficult passage. Have a good one.

Be REAL careful. I've had things happen that made it seem for sure God was telling me one thing and in hindsight, I don't think it was him and if it was, it may have not been what I thought.

God may answer you or he may not answer you in the way you think. For example; God may tell you to pray and read the scriptures, gain Wisdom and Knowledge from them. Then using the Wisdom of the spirit decide for yourself if you want to move further with a person. Take it slow and watch. Be very patient.

Then if it's what you BOTH want and you have used Biblical Wisdom, then let it be. But God may not say yes or no. He may want you to make the decision based on Godly Wisdom, Knowledge, and Faith.

You have to be careful because you could get led by your feelings of the flesh, a familiar spirit, all types of things.

It sounds like you have a huge crush on someone and you want God to go ahead and tell you yes, so you can pursue it or to tell you no, so you can get over it and not have to deal with any kind of rejection or hard feelings. This is normal but God will often times want us to do things with his guidance rather than him doing it for us.

Just like if you raise a child, as the child gets older, you do a disservice if you do everything for the child or if you know what will happen and you always tell your child what will happen, you are not allowing the child to learn.

This sounds weird coming from me because I was really bad about doing this. I wanted God to tell me Yes or No to every single thing I did in life, from the smallest thing to the biggest things. I didn't want to MOVE until God had said something.

That is when I started to realize it's not always like that and I posted here on this forum and a book was recommended to me. This book came in the next day even though I didn't pay for next day, from Amazon. It's not a big read, you can read it quickly. I do think it will help you.

I believe God speaks to people today just as much as he ever has but I think more than ever we don't grow up and take responsibility as Christians.

It's by Kevin DeYoung, it's called, 'Just do Something OR How to make a decision without dreams, visions, fleeces, impressions, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc"

Here is a link to it: https://www.amazon.com/Just-Do-Something-Liberating-Approach/dp/0802411592/ref=asc_df_0802411592/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312734536225&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=9018257537480004976&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=200524&hvtargid=pla-439247114772&psc=1

So in situations like strong addictions, I would suggest that you involve a trusted pastor or counselor to provide some daily guidance and help you with a plan specific to your situation.

To answer your question directly, this book is filled with verses on Christ bringing freedom to addiction and how to actually find freedom from addiction through Christ. It's written by two Christian counselors as well as a person who broke free from addiction through Christ:

https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Addiction-Breaking-Bondage-Finding/dp/0830717579/

I use the BDAG as my lexicon. It's pretty pricey, but is the definitive lexicon when it comes to scholarship.

I use the Theological Lexicons of the Old and New Testament (TLOT and TLNT) a lot as well. Those don't have every word, but most of the ones that are theologically significant.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is also a good resource. I assume the Old Testament one is, as well, but I don't have that one.

As far as Hebrew lexicons, I like A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. It's pretty basic, but relatively reliable.

Sweet friend you are not alone. All believers struggle with distance from God. I often pray to Him that He would make His presence known so I could feel Him close to me. It is rare that I do feel close to Him. That is ok. I keep walking in faith. Brant Hansen wrote a great book on this topic called Blessed are the Misfits. https://www.amazon.com/Blessed-Are-Misfits-Introverts-Strugglers/dp/0718096312/ref=sr_1_1?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgcelu56a5AIVC9bACh1bXwb7EAAYASAAEgKwS_D_BwE&hvadid=241923947213&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9028058&hvnetw=g&hvpos=1t1&hvqmt=e&hvrand=3690190086490113648&hvtargid=kwd-295803962379&hydadcr=24631_10399644&keywords=blessed+are+the+misfits&qid=1566606097&s=gateway&sr=8-1

There's a really good book called His Word in My Heart: Memorizing Scripture For a Closer Walk With God by Janet Pope. I'm linking only because there's a newer edition that doesn't always show up on Amazon. The previous edition was published around 2002 I think. Anyway, it covers a lot of tips and the why behind it as well.

Here's an interview she did as well if you don't want to get the book. It's short and she covers the topic at a higher level.

I think the book or video will give you a better background on the why and how rather than just a list of verses to memorize. Good luck!

What? I didn't. I have no idea what you're referring to. =\

Wow. It's not showing on the thread anymore...that's really weird. Never seen that before. The whole thing still shows up in my comment history though. I'll re-paste it below:

---

Sure. I mostly mean being deliberately inclusive on non-core tenets and practices, while never compromising on the biblical core. We want to avoid ever comprising the faith, while also being willing to change whatever God wants us to change, in the vein of Paul's explanation in [1 Corinthians 9:19-23]. /u/versebot

I mean we ask two questions as a basis for life: "Where is it written in scripture?" and "How is your walk?" This puts focus on knowing Christ as upheld by scripture and embodying him in our lives as the center of everything else.

I mean we ask "Where are the absolute worst hurts in the world?" and concentrate missional focus there deliberately (which, humanly speaking, can be very hard to do).

I'll do my best to give some more specific examples below.

---

Regarding core-vs-secondary: For example, we explicitly affirm both infant baptism (followed later by confirmation) AND baby-dedication (followed later by personal-commitment baptism). We believe baptism as a practice is intended to unite believers into one body, rather than dividing them by the means of practicing it. This allows all believers to follow their consciences in the matter and respects the biblical argument one can make for each practice.

Another is that we believe in the full ordination of women (as a "trajectory" that be traced in the NT) and in the need to genuinely embrace LGBTQ people with love over everything else -- while affirming the centrality of scripture on all matters including sexuality (e.g. rejecting the allegedly "unstoppable slippery slope" that Piper and others say inevitably results in churches kowtowing to sexual liberalism . . . which we nevertheless are not doing). A good depiction of how we approach this matter is embodied in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619

Also, in sharing about the ECC before, I've run across the following commentary (from a Methodist's point of view) on our evangelistic mission:

http://www.confessingumc.org/could-we-learn-from-the-evangelical-covenant-church/

We've made it a conspicuous mission to conduct racial reconciliation and to seek multiracial/multiculturalism as a denomination in any ways we can. Any ways that people are divided from each other creates a gaping wound that the church can step in to heal in Christ, and we believe it is impossible to fully honor this without engaging in racial reconciliation.

In reaching out to anyone in poverty, we focus as local churches on the poor in our own neighborhood/city while also asking the global question, "Who are the absolute poorest people on the planet?" and concentrating denominational funding there deliberately.

We've also put a huge focus on combating slavery and sex trafficking over the last two decades, believing that this is one of the basest ways human beings are routinely desecrated around the world.

More or less, I've looked around at various Christian denominations with heartache over so many things that people refuse to change (that just aren't central) -- and also grieved at so many ways that multiple denominations have utterly compromised to accommodate the "demands of the world." I've felt such relief and gratitude to have a clear conscience in supporting the Evangelical Covenant church's stance and mission.

We're fairly small numerically speaking, and we have a lot to learn from our brothers and sisters in every denomination. Will/do leaders in the ECC ultimately require rebuke and correction? Almost certainly. But I feel relieved by (rather than ashamed of) the ECC on an ongoing basis. Are we somehow "superior"? Of course not. We're as humanly broken as the rest of the global church. But that hasn't stopped us from following Jesus in the special ways he's called us to do.

We're kind of "post-Lutheran" in our Swedish roots, but that's an easier thing to simply look up.

---

If there's anything I shared here that concerns you as mods, feel free to confront me about it. I will not be offended -- and neither will I make pretenses to falsely seek approval.

Sure. But decide for yourself and test the spirits. Here are a few of the things I worry about with Elevation.

http://www.piratechristian.com/messedupchurch/2016/8/steven-furtick-cornucopia-of-false-teaching-egomania-and-hairgel

https://churchwatchcentral.com/2016/05/29/why-narcigesis-doesnt-work-furtick-claims-to-be-the-son-of-god/

"Steven Furtick, who is somehow still considered part of the Southern Baptist Convention, will be a speaker at (yet another) conference from the heretical, Montanist, NAR mega-church: Bethel Church, Redding. This conference promises to "bring heaven" (if you buy an expensive ticket) just like all of their other conferences: "

https://religionnews.com/2016/05/11/why-pastor-steven-furtick-skirts-scandalous-questions/

https://bereanresearch.org/god-break-law-love/

https://pulpitandpen.org/?s=Steven+Furtick

https://wideawakechristian.blogspot.com/2014/02/emergent-monday-cult-of-furtick.html

https://carm.org/steven-furtick

http://pastorgabehughes.blogspot.com/2015/11/are-td-jakes-and-steven-furtick_25.html

I have been to Bethel a few times and I had close ties with some people who attended Bethel. Bethel follows prosperity gospel and their leadership claim apostleship. Though they have cleaned up their website a little, go attend for awhile and you will see the heresy. Or read Vallotton's book.

https://www.amazon.com/School-Prophets-Advanced-Training-Prophetic/dp/0800796209

A Glorious Bride
Christ is returning for a glorious overcoming bride - His Church. We are sons and daughters of the King, more than “sinners saved by grace.” We aim to fulfill the Great Commission and steward revival to the next generation. We embrace the biblical government of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

https://bethelredding.com/content/prophetic-ministry -- you can be taught these gifts and get prophecy on-demand. They actually have scheduled prophetic sessions--prophecy has never worked on-demand.

Freedom through Salvation
Salvation frees us from the power of the devil - sin, lies, sickness and torment.

It's not dangerous per se, but merely understand that it is quite untrue. Yes, there are bound to be some truths somewhere in it, but reading untruth to understand truth is tricky.

If I were in your shoes, I'd study the Trinity. According to John Frame, that's the basis for understanding the consciousness.

Here's one article written to discuss some of his thoughts on this:

http://www.proginosko.com/docs/Frame_Festschrift_Essay.pdf

Read John Frame on epistemology and Michael Reeves Delighting in the Trinity https://www.amazon.com/Delighting-Trinity-Introduction-Christian-Faith/dp/0830839836/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499447945&sr=1-1&keywords=michael+trinity and you'll make significant progress in your search, I think.

I think the Trinity explains everything.

Check out the book His Word in my Heart by Janet Pope. My goal is to memorize the full NT eventually, and she gives great tips. She memorizes books at a time, and gives some great ways to do so. There's really no right or wrong way to memorize Scripture. You can do the verse numbers with them if you'd like. Most of the Scripture I know I don't know the verse numbers, I just have them in my heart from reading them and God will always bring them to my memory when I need them :)

Well, Penal Substitutionary Atonement gets its launch with Calvin, so no early church fathers believed it. Augustine had some pieces of it, and had a huge impact on the theology of the West. Ignatius and Clement certainly didn't hold to anything close to PSA. I'd recommend you dig into Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Naziansus, Basil, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others like them.

Also, since we're discussing it and you are interested in it, I wrote a short book on the subject, and I'd be happy to send you a PDF of it.

I would highly suggest The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer Its an awesome book. Aside from the Bible its one of two books I like best.

Many Christians agree with you. Here is a good book about the topic http://www.amazon.com/Salvation-And-How-Got-Wrong/dp/1483904873

Dietrich Bonhoeffer - The Cost of Discipleship

EDIT: Just saw that someone else already said this. I won't change mine though because it's a great book.

In case you want to read up more on your question, you may be interested in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s struggle with the same thing. Give Ethics or The Cost of Discipleship a try. TLDR; he was a pastor in the end who decided it was biblical to conspire against Hitler and it cost him his life. Really smart, well-reasoned man who had a biblical basis for what he wrote. Found myself challenged by his books.

Here is the mobile version of your link