The Statement (tenets) of faith that the Assemblies of God believes in.. these are non-negotiable..

Actually haha.. Sheryl.. this is FYI *grin*

Okay.. giving credit to the AG website at http://ag.org/top/beliefs/truths.cfm

1. The Scriptures Inspired
The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, are verbally inspired of God and are the revelation of God to man, the infallible, authoritative rule of faith and conduct.

2. The One True God
The one true God has revealed Himself as the eternally self-existent "I AM," the Creator of heaven and earth and the Redeemer of mankind. He has further revealed Himself as embodying the principles of relationship and association as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

3. The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God. The Scriptures declare: His virgin birth, His sinless life, His miracles, His substitutionary work on the cross, His bodily resurrection from the dead, His exaltation to the right hand of God.

4. The Fall of Man
Man was created good and upright; for God said, "Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness." However, man by voluntary transgression fell and thereby incurred not only physical death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God.

5. The Salvation of Man
Man's only hope of redemption is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

6. The Ordinances of the Church
Baptism in Water: The ordinance of baptism by immersion is commanded by the Scriptures. All who repent and believe on Christ as Saviour and Lord are to be baptized. Thus they declare to the world that they have died with Christ and that they also have been raised with Him to walk in newness of life.
Holy Communion: The Lord's Supper, consisting of the elements --bread and the fruit of the vine-- is the symbol expressing our sharing the divine nature of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:4), a memorial of his suffering and death (1 Corinthians 11:26), and a prophecy of His second coming (1 Corinthians 11:26) and is enjoined on all believers "till He come!"

7. The Baptism in the Holy Ghost
All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Ghost and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ. This was the normal experience of all in the early Christian Church. With it comes the enduement of power for life and service, the bestowment of the gifts and their uses in the work of the ministry.

8. The Initial Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost
The baptism of believers in the Holy Ghost is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.

9. Sanctification
Sanctification is an act of separation from that which is evil, and of dedication unto God. The Scriptures teach a life of "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord". By the power of the Holy Ghost we are able to obey the command: "Be ye holy, for I am holy". Sanctification is realized in the believer by recognizing his identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, and by the faith reckoning daily upon the fact of that union, and by offering every faculty continually to the dominion of the Holy Spirit.

I thought of putting this up on my blog but I thought this related more to others about our God than it did to me personally about my God.

I have a friend, a young friend... who placed this up on her blog.
"You give and take away,
 You give and take away,
 But my heart will choose to say,
 Lord blessed be Your name"

I just read an article online.. It's called "From the Heart Questions".. I stumbled on it while searching for some book by Selwyn Hughes.. but what caught my eye about it was the verse Psalm 23:4 "Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me".. and then I started to read the entire article..

The article can be found here, by Marilyn Anderes..

It is an article in which I saw some of the questions that God asks us.. If u read the article.. One of them would be, "Where are you?" from Gen 3:9.. according to Ms Anderes, or rather Selwyn Hughes, is the Great Theological question... How far or close to Him we are.. He wants to know that.. Cos, I suppose we fluctuate at this a lot.. When times are pretty alright, we can be as close to Him as we want to.. but, when things look downhill.. It's just a little harder to praise Him and talk to Him.. To be able to be close to Him thru all circumstances.. that's something that we all strive towards.. Not just to be close to Him after a great relieving of tears at the altar or watnots..

The second question, "Who told you?".. from Gen 3:11..The Great Truth question.. Nothing else can or will supercede what God says to us.. about everything.. about ourselves, about our circumstances, situations.. Not even what we say to ourselves.. actually, especially what we say about ourselves or the stuff going on.. for the heart is deceitful above all else.. sighh.. we can't even trust ourselves.. the devil talks to us thru our hearts as well.. especially when we aren't that strong..

Third question, "What have you done?"..Gen 3:13.. the Great Moral question.. to take responsibility over what we have decided to do.. to be able to own up to it.. the article says something about being caught up in the headlamps of God's holiness.. God wants us to be holy.. He already sees us through Christ, because, through Christ, being our righteousness, we become pure.. But holiness, to be holy, just as Christ is holy.. I suppose that we have to sit ourselves down and be truthful with ourselves.. a friend told me once.. "..my conscience may be clear, but that does not mean I am innocent"  from 1st Corinthians 4:4..

Oh wait.
So I do have some spiritual insight to part today.

"Dear friends,
 now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known.
 But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see Him as He is.
 Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure."
 
                                                                                      -1 John 3:2&3-

Doctrinal issues, denominations, pointless theological debates... must they be THAT dogmatic?

love,
sheryl

Oi tabster.
I had 'em ice-cream.
EAT YOUR HEART OUT.
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Ben & Jerry's ice cream.. my current ice-cream craze..

It all began in junior high gym class in Merrick, Long Island. Two boys, running around the athletic field, had found a common bond. Ben Cohen & Jerry Greenfield hated running, but they loved food. In 1978 they decided to go into business together. With diplomas from a $5 correspondence course & their life savings ($8,000), they converted an old abandoned gas station in Burlington, Vermont, into the original Ben & Jerry's & stated making Vermont's Finest ice cream. They used only fresh Vermont cream & milk, & the best & biggest chunks of nuts, fruits, candies & cookies. It wasn't long before the lines for ice cream stretched out the door, & that was only the beginning.
-excerpt from the official Ben & Jerry's website http://www.benjerry.com-

Haha.. I must be nuts, going online and checking their website out.. but, wow.. looking at the flavours there, blew my mind away.. it's like.. gosh.. wow.. *drool gathers in a pool on the ground*

Come on.. with flavours like Appley Ever After (Brown Sugar Ice Cream with a Ginger-Caramel Swirl and Apples), Chocolate Therapy (Chocolate Ice Cream with Chocolate Cookies & Swirls of Chocolate Pudding Ice Cream), Dublin Mudslide (Irish Cream Liqueur Ice Cream with Chocolate, Chocolate Chip Cookies and a Coffee Fudge Swirl) the one I had, Strawberry Cheesecake (Strawberry Cheesecake Ice Cream with Strawberries & a Thick Graham Cracker Swirl), One Sweet Whirled (Caramel & Coffee Ice Creams with Marshmallow & Caramel Swirls & Coffee Flavored Fudge Chips), Half Baked (Chocolate & Vanilla Ice Creams with Fudge Brownies & Gobs of Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough) etc..

I need to stop.. or, I need to go to a country where they sell Ben & Jerry's.. They have got 18 countries that they distribute their ice-cream at, and Malaysia is NOT one of them.. how much can life suck..?? Closest is Singapore.. Boohoo.. Arghh... Sheryl!!! They have it in UK!!!! But, I suppose by the time you get it back here, it would just be chocolate soup or something.. sighh..

Singapore.. I'll be back.. soon..

For now.. I'll just dream and remember.. flavours from the past, visions of it still fills my head.. The taste, ahh.. heavenly..

I thought these were the key things in the previous post.
I'm underlining them to probably make what he said more concise:

First note, always the historical context:

2) Old testament can be generically divided into

   a) Decalogue  (10 commandments)

   b) Pentateuch (similar to Torah, first 5 books of OT)

   c) Historical Narratives (Joshua, Judges, etc.)

3) Doctrine is derived from all 3.

Second note, we are NOT OF the Old Testament. We are under the blood of the New Testament.

The new covenant made between us and God is done through the act of redemptive grace on the Cross.

Therefore the New Covenant is underlined through out the NT.

Third note, well... we women, are we ceremonially unclean for a week thus disbanded from any place of worship when we menstruate? (Lev. 15)

Answer: no.

Why?

We approach this methodologically.

First, being exiled for menstruating is considered a law.

There are 3 types of law:

1) Apodictic 

2) Casuistic  

3) Ceremonial

Apodictic or Moral Law is something ALL Christian abides to. (Ex. 20:2-17)

Casuistic is dependent on what its term implies; it is law appropriated according to the cause. (Ex. 21-23)

Almost situational perhaps. (Lev. 20-21)

Ceremonial is what distinguishes the Israelites from other nations; in order to know that the are Yahweh's elect.

Final note, it is important to remember that..

"When the Old Testament prescribes a behavior and the New Testament also affirms the advisement, Christians ought to pay attention and uphold the moral law (homosexuality). Next, when rules and commands of the Old Testament are contrary to the New Testament, the New Testament takes priority (circumcision)."

In Jeff's Ethics Paper, he mentions fractured usage of the OT. Fractured usage of the OT is what the above sentence implies; not taking the OT as an absolute. Hence the term 'fractured'.

But then... how do we distinguish which law from which?

So, the operative word: hermeneutics.

The rest, is to your own dissection.

enjoy.

love, (fiercely my friends)

sheryl

-.. be active in sharing your faith, so that you will have a FULL UNDERSTANDING of every good thing we have in Christ. Philemon v.6- (emphasis mine)

Explain to a moral skeptic your justification for a "fractured" use of the Old Testament law. In making your case, describe the types of commands you might encounter in the Old Testament and explain why and how these commands are or are not still morally applicable as they are given in the Old Testament Law. Use Scripture in justifying your answer.

In so much as making claims about the Bible's inerrancy and inspiration, one might see Scripture as being inconsistent in its teaching about certain moral quandaries. Those irregularities affecting one's ability to see a solid moral reliability can be eased by applying proper hermeneutical study to those verses that seem to say one thing, but are not practiced principally. For example, defrauding other people (Lev. 19:13), homosexuality (Lev. 18:22), and tattooing (Lev. 19:28) are all forbidden in the Old Testament. Yet, planting two kinds of seeds in your field (Lev. 19:19b), wearing clothing made with two kinds of material (Lev. 19:19c), and eating meat with blood still in it (Lev. 19:26) are also prohibited in the Old Testament, but are still practiced today. Where is the appropriate line drawn?

It might seem conflicting to uphold the former examples and disregard the latter in the above paragraph, but there is a reason for this. A "fractured" use of the Old Testament, or only fulfilling part of the Law, is proper in that it is not simply ignoring those verses that seem trivial and participating in the ones that Christians view as important (though to a skeptic, it may seem to be this way). Christianity recognizes the notion that they are no longer under the Law, but under grace because of the sacrifice that Christ made on behalf of them. Man no longer had to make sacrifices for his transgression. Jesus' death was the atonement for all of humanity's sins (1 Jn. 2:2). "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace" (Ro. 6:14). For the Christian, his or her duty is to follow the example of Christ. A moral doubter still might question the fractured use of the Old Testament and not be able to see how Christians can justify keeping only some of the Law. It is here that the Law is examined and the task is see where the differences lie.

One of the problems with interpretation is, a lot of different people read the Bible in a lot of different ways. However, if Christians would teach proper hermeneutical (the way we read and interpret the Bible) methods, than the skeptic might begin to see a consistency in the Scriptures. First, the Bible is a collection of sixty-six books that speak of doctrine, moral commands, and narratives. When reading the Bible, one must decide if that particular book being read is describing people's behavior or prescribing the behavior for those whom read it. The hermeneutical approach will alleviate the complications that come from not knowing much of the author's original intent for that book.

Now, looking through the Old Testament, it appears to be a vast amount of rules and commands. But were those instructions simply for the Israelites or are they still applicable today? It is apparent that much of the debate for a fractured use revolves around the Christian's intent to moralize some commands and pay no mind to others, but this is not the case. A true follower of Jesus does not want to do anything except follow Christ. He or she does not have to fulfill the Law; the Christian just wants to find what behavior is acceptable to God. When reading through the Old Testament though, one can seemingly see several discrepancies about how man and woman are supposed to live. When examined under hermeneutical guidelines, those incongruities fade away.

It is already been said that knowing the author's intent for either stipulating law or illustrating the law is important. A reader must discern between what is cultural and permanent. However, we can go one step deeper and look at this civil law and see what verses are actually mandating law and which verses were specific to the Israelites. Generally speaking, the Old Testament is for the Israelites. That does not mean, however, that we are not to follow the same rules they had to or that modern Christians cannot gleam truth from the Law. Throughout the Old Testament, like the New Testament, there are descriptions of different types of writing. Doctrine is derived from the Decalogue (Ten Commandments). The Pentateuch gives Christians commands for moral living (Leviticus). The historical narratives (Joshua, Judges, etc) tell of God's people and their leadership. Sometimes there are commands for contemporary Christianity and sometimes there are not. In the Law genre, the commands can be broke down into three categories: Apodictic law, Casuistic law, and Ceremonial law. Apodictic or moral law is usually a relevant application for all Christians (Ex. 20:2-17). Casuistic or case law derives the legality of a specific case and gives consequences for it depending on which rules it falls under (Ex. 21-23). Ceremonial law directs the Israelites to their relationship with God because this is how other nations identify them with Yahweh (Lev. 20-21). Knowing what types of laws there are will help a moral skeptic see a justified reason for a fractured use of the Old Testament. But how can one study and know what verses represent which law?

Because Christians have the Bible today, it is much easier to discern between laws of the Old Testament. The addition of the New Testament is a huge advantage for Christendom. The first century Christians only had the Torah, so believers now can benefit from the whole Bible to find a clearer understanding of God's interaction with the world. When reading the Old Testament, there are several things one must keep in mind. First, we must try to see the Old Testament in light of the New Testament because we are under grace. When the Old Testament prescribes a behavior and the New Testament also affirms the advisement, Christians ought to pay attention and uphold the moral law (homosexuality). Next, when rules and commands of the Old Testament are contrary to the New Testament, the New Testament takes priority (circumcision). Lastly, when Law teachings are neither opposing nor agreeing in the New Testament, a Christian should see them in the context of the whole biblical lesson. By observing a proper examination of the Old Testament, the moral skeptic can see why a fractured usage of the Old Testament is necessary in trying to figure out what is commanded for Christians.

written by Jeff Watkins in his ethics exam which he got.... right, just follow the link.
Makes my life easier.
 http://towhomitmayconcern.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_towhomitmayconcern_archive.html

Sometimes, the hardest thing I've got going for me is my God. The word 'Lord' evokes a tremendous amount of offense to numbers more than what qualifies as a minority. And sometimes, the word 'Lord' itself is offensive, even to me. More than defining what euphemism is, I kinda wanna go down another road and define offend (verb of offense):

Offend (v.) : 1) cause to feel hurt or resentful.
                   2) be displeasing to.
                   3) commit an illegal act. > break a commonly accepted rule or principle.

And then, I would like to define defend (verb of defense):

2 Corinthians 5:17-25 (The Message)

¹⁷Now we look inside, and what we see is that anyone united with the Messiah gets a fresh start, is created new. The old life is gone; a new life burgeons! Look at it! ¹⁸All this comes from the God who settled the relationship between us and him, and then called us to settle our relationships with each other. ¹⁹God put the world square with himself through the Messiah, giving the world a fresh start by offering forgiveness of sins. God has given us the task of telling everyone what he is doing. ²⁰We're Christ's representatives. God uses us to persuade men and women to drop their differences and enter into God's work of making things right between them. We're speaking for Christ himself now: Become friends with God; he's already a friend with you.

    ²¹How? you say. In Christ. God put the wrong on him who never did anything wrong, so we could be put right with God.

Definitions aside, let's contextualise the whole issue now.
The Cross is known to be foolishness to man (1 Corinthians 1:18), and a good thing to examine would be the reason for it to be such.
So, why would such a simple understanding of a perfect Being being put to death on a cross be considered foolish to man?
Let us consider what is foolish to man first...
Now, this is a difficult question, because mankind is so diverse therefore foolishness covers too wide a ground to deserve amateur speculation from someone who strongly hopes and advocates in the globalisation of kai fun and then writes (hopefully one day about the globalisation of kai fun) on a relatively self-effacing (well, not yet at least)unknown blog.
So we personalise what is foolish to an individual (in this case, it can only be me) and then extrapolate it to the masses, in hopes it would resonate with a number that more than qualifies as the minority.
So, why would the cross be foolish to me?
Because it is so absolute it pointing out my insufficiency as a being.
For me, my world is all about me. The Ego is autonomous and incredibly narcissitic.
How does it go? That's right.. Me, Myself and I.
If you say someone, or some God was incarnated and subsequently put to death by cruxifiction because of my being.. I count that ridiculous. For there is no relevence.
Putting aside antagonistic intellectual and philosophical opinions due to historical implications of dominant Western religious culture, the objective persuaded by the Bible is a mockery of my self-sufficiency. Of course that is foolish, for I don't need a God.
I am my own God.
I thought it was foolish, because I don't get what sin is about.
And I sure ain't no sinner. I ain't no nobody.
This line of thinking is most obviously a by-product of capitalism in post-modernism as you can see, deceptively termed as the positive sounding 'individualism'.
Denial is so remarkedly pervasive in the manifestation of sin.
To summarise, The Cross is foolish, because it is redundant.
It is foolishness because it is not needed.

So, leading on from that... why is something not needed so offensive?
Because it has become everyone's mission to impose the necessity of The Cross for salvation.
That statement itself is most definitely truth personified *disclaimer: Christians nod their heads*, but the deviation is in the definition of salvation. Salvation, cannot be termed simply as a mean to a destination.
What does that mean? *disclaimer: the following sentences assumes that one adheres to the belief of an after-life. Another discussion considering someone who does not believe in one will take place when I'm less hungry*
That means, you cannot say the absence or the presence of salvation clearly lies only in where you will end up in the afterlife, your destination.
So NO, The Cross itself is not the landmark for your destination.                        Because The Cross doesn't deal with 'Later Ons' or 'Maybes' or 'Tomorrows' or 'Another Day'. It talks about the now. You are sinful. Now. In your white robes, your are sinful.
So it is foolish because it is unnecessary.. but the incredible dichotomy it proposes that it is necessary amidst its 'unnecessary-ness' leads to it becoming offensive. It is offensive because it is breaks a commonly held priniciple that regulates the focus of The Ego.

Now, proof via Joel Wong shows us that stupidity cannot be rectified...so what do we do?
We reconcile.
We're speaking for Christ himself now: Become friends with God; he's already a friend with you.
All that is offensive, we must strive to make it less of an offense.
That is our decree, to create disciples and teach, guide, protect them.
I don't say this as if we are an exclusive club that cancels out the sovereign aspect of God but in truth, this reconciliation exalts this characterisitic of our God. 
How? you say. In Christ. God put the wrong on him who never did anything wrong, so we could be put right with God.

There are many things to be done; we need to pack our bags, leave our comfortable homes and begin this work of reconciliation. I think it's going to be hard, I think it involves very little tangible commendation, I think it will break my spirit more times than I am able to bear.

But I also think that that's where the fun is ladies and gentlemen.

love, (fiercely, my friends)
sheryl