Disqus - Latest Comments for jeffbristow

Re: Ping.fm / Blog / A Present and Laconic Update

jeffbristow — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:24:14 -0000

And now GTalk as well. Thanks for all of the new features!

Re: Ping.fm / Blog / A Present and Laconic Update

jeffbristow — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:37:41 -0000

I also see you added support for Orkut. That is great!

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:40:21 -0000

I agree with the Lordship of Christ completely. I think you are missing my actual point by getting bogged down on Theological details that are true without question. I am asking a question that I have honestly never seen anyone ask, and I am guessing you have never seen asked in this way.

I am asking about what actually makes us Christian. We define groups as being Christian or non-Christian based on their Theology (understanding of God or Christ) yet it is not our Theology that saves us. So either our proper understanding of Christ's sacrifice is essential for our salvation or God is able to save us by Christ's sacrifice even if we don't really understand it.

You are saying that we must have a proper understanding or our Faith and how it all works between Jesus and the Father or the person is following the wrong Jesus. But does the New Testament teach us this? Did Paul write to Churches and tell them they were following the wrong Jesus or did he teach them the truth about Jesus and shed light on the false teachings that they were hearing and believing?

Does understanding and knowledge about God come after acceptance or before? If it is before then our Theology must be correct for our acceptance of Christ to have value. If understanding can come after then Christs sacrifice can be valid and then the believer can begin to see the truth. But for them to see the truth they need to be taught the truth. If they are hearing false teachings it should be expected for them to believe false things about Christ. I see Paul writing to clear up false teachings to Churches, not declaring those believers to be outside of the flock, but believers being led astray by false teachings.

But hey, I could be completley wrong. :)

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:31:12 -0000

Acts 2:36-38

"So let everyone in Israel know for certain that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, to be both Lord and Messiah!"
37 Peter's words pierced their hearts, and they said to him and to the other apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

This again is a verse that highlights that Jesus is more than just a man. (v.36) That He is God through the use of the word Lord. But it still makes no claim that understanding this truth is necessary for someone to accept Jesus. This is not to say that this very truth can not be what compels someone to come to Christ as occured in this instance in Acts. This is the very argument that some make for speaking in tongues being the sign that you have been saved. Because there are examples of this happening when people became believers in Acts. Yet a wholistic approach shows us that not all believers will speak in tongues so how can we use it as a basis for someone being saved?

I am seriously looking for a scripture that backs up the idea that our proper understanding or Theology of God or Christ is a basis for our salvation. We teach this concept to people without backing it up. I want to know the truth, not just what we think is the truth. And the truth will be backed up by scripture.

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:21:11 -0000

I used to buy the different Jesus concept. That is until I began to think about this.

If someone believes the following are they a Christian?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." —John 3:16 (NIV)

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." —Romans 3:23 (NIV)

"For the wages of sin is death." —Romans 6:23 (NIV)

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." —Romans 5:8 (NIV)

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." —Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me." —Revelation 3:20 (NIV)

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God." —John 1:12 (NIV)

These are the most common verses that are used to share the Gospel message to someone.

You are saying that someone who accepts Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins but does not understand that Jesus is God has somehow placed their faith in a different Jesus. Seems to me that they need more teaching rather than to meet a different Jesus.

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:24:44 -0000

You are assuming that someone who believes that Jesus is not God is also making the logical conclusion that Jesus is incapable of saving them. That is our logical conclusion based on scripture and what we know to be true about Christ. But for people who fail to see Jesus divinity, they do believe that Jesus is fully capable of saving them as scripture describes. You would think they would see the flaw in their understanding but they do not. If they did then their faith would be phony. How could anyone trust in Christ to save them if they do not have faith that he can actually do that? The issue is when they do have faith that he can do just that yet they do not understanding that He and God the Father are one and the same.

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 12:18:12 -0000

I agree that posing that question to someone who does not believe that Jesus is God is very valid and valuable to get them to see the truth. I agree that Jesus sacrifice would not be valid if Jesus were not God. But does someone failing to know this or understand this make their acceptance of Jesus Christ any less valid? I know my acceptance of Christ as savior was not because He was God, it was because He was and is able to forgive my sins. these deeper discussions and understandings unwrapped as I learned more about Christ and matured in my faith. The ins and outs and whys of how that salvation works is not foundational in my acceptance of Jesus Christ. It is not my knowledge or understanding that saves me. It is Jesus perfect sacrifice that saves me.

Just because someone does not believe that Jesus is God does not make it so that Jesus is no longer truly God. It simply means they do not understand that He is. So does someone need to understand or know that Jesus is God to be able to accept Jesus as savior? I can't find scripture to support this claim which is clearly grounds that I have used to define someone as being Christian.

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:36:10 -0000

I didn't make the claim that someone would put their faith in Christ for the remission for their sins and then not believe that Christ is capable of doing that. I have yet to meet someone who has made that claim. I am talking about people who put their faith in Christ because they do believe that he is fully able to forgive them of their sins.

The issue is people who do believe that Jesus is fully capable to forgive them of their sins. But those same people do not believe that Jesus is God. We understand that He is God. But why does their lack of understanding that He is God make their belief in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins less valid? We can break apart their bad theology rather quickly and show them that Jesus is in fact God. But again it goes back to how we are saved. Is it from a proper understanding of Jesus or through Faith in Jesus?

I now see Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses as people who have been deeply deceived by false teachings and we need to teach them the truth. We shouldn't ignore these theological issues, but I question calling one of these people 'non-Christian' over their bad theology when the core of what makes us Christian is what these people have placed their faith in. Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:16:50 -0000

These verses teach us about the diety of Jesus but that is not the question being discussed. These verses do not declare we are saved because of a proper understanding of Jesus diety. I am not questioning the diety of Christ or his sinlessness. I am questioning the underlying issue that we believe that somehow our understanding or knowledge is how we are saved and therefore followers of Christ when the Bible clearly says we are saved by Jesus sacrifice. Faith alone is often touted as how we are saved. If that is true then how can we add additional qualifications to this? Either there is more than faith alone, or we are adding more to what saves someone than what Jesus has done. Is if Faith plus a proper understanding of how God is able to save and the details of His sacrifice and union with God the Father and the Holy Spirit that saves us? This is the question at hand, not the details for any specific piece of Theology. The basics of what makes a Christian a Christian.

Coming to understand who Christ is, is part of growing with Him. But if a believer has people teaching them false teachings that teach them things that are wrong about Christ and they believe those things and still hold to Jesus sacrifice and their faith in that as their salvation, are they still Christian or is their bad Theology now bad enough that their acceptance of Christ is null and void? I can't seem to find scriptural evidence for such a claim. I can find loads of evidence for Jesus being God and his sacrifice being perfect in that he lives a sinless life. But again, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not a proper understanding of that truth is a requirement for someone to accept Christ. You are saying that it is. So can we find scriptural evidence to make that claim?

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:30:47 -0000

Can we find a scriptural basis that we must believe or understand that Jesus Christ is God for his sacrifice to actually impact our status with God?

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:19:46 -0000

My understanding of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe is that Jesus is not God. That Jesus is the Son of God in a literal sense. That Jesus died on the cross as a sacrifice. But Jesus did not rise from the grave physically, but as a spirit.

This view of who Jesus is, is clearly not scriptural. The New Testament has a good number of verses that deal with this idea since there were some who believed this in the early days of the Church. I would even say that this is clearly 'false teaching'. But for those who have been deceived by these false teachers and believe in Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins, is it their Theology that makes them non-Christian? It sounds like that is the essential argument. But then is making that claim scriptural?

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:19:05 -0000

I have no doubt that there are Mormons that believe they need to work their way to salvation. Just as there are many 'Christians' who believe the same. So the labels seem to mean very little. I have talked with a few Mormons over the past few years and have always heard a very clear gospel message from them. So I know that there are Mormons that believe the sacrifice of Christ and their acceptance of that is why they are saved. The other side of the coin is that they have some wacky Theology that I can't ever endorse or even begin to consider to be valid. I believe that due to this that many Mormons are being deceived by the ones teaching them the bad Theology which prevents them from living a full life here and now. And I used to think that due to this bad Theology that they are not Christians. My motivation was to reveal Jesus Christ to them as their savior. When the real issue was to bring the teachings of Jesus Christ to them so they can live a full life now and follow his true words. I see this as being a very different issue than them being saved or not saved. I think more Mormons are pushed away from the true teachings of Jesus because many 'Christians' have declared them to not be followers of Christ, rather than trying to show them Jesus true teachings.

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:40:29 -0000

You are building on my premise. That there are people who live out their faith, act like Christ, and believe the words of scripture. They are committed and devoted to Jesus Christ for their salvation. Genuine followers of Christ. I acknowledge that there are many who claim to be Christian who are not because they do not follow Christ in how they live their lives. Jesus affirms that these people are out there. I am talking not about those who are Christian by name alone, but those who follow Jesus Christ in every aspect of their life. I am not concerned with the name someone calls themselves. You can call yourself a Christian all you want but if Jesus Christ is not who has saved you then you are not a follower of Jesus Christ. If you call yourself a Bovitite and have accepted Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, then you would be a follower of Christ regardless of the name you define yourself with.

I am talking about those who do believe in Jesus Christ have accepted him and place their salvation in His hands. Yet they believe things that are not true about Jesus or about God the Father. For example the Trinity, or Jesus divinity. Is it these false things that disqualify some from being 'Christian'? That sounds rather Gnostic. If so how can we then claim to be saved if we too have some false understanding or belief about God? I would argue that it is Jesus sacrifice that saves us and not our fully accurate understanding of that sacrifice. We are called to accept his sacrificet, not to fully understand it. How can we make an argument that we must have proper Theology when we know that it is not our Theology or understanding of God that saves us?

I am not saying that a false belief is in any way valid or true. But I am seriously questioning what truly makes a Christian a Christian. It is either very simple and many people can be considered Christian, even those who hold to some false beliefs. Or there is far more to being a Follower of Christ.

So this goes back to the original question. Who is a Christian? or Who is a Christ Follower? How can we define this? The definitions that are commonly held to would not disqualify some 'heretical' groups. So either our definition is not correct, or our acceptance of other followers of Christ is flawed.

Re: Disqualified Christians

jeffbristow — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:10:58 -0000

The challenge is: What makes someone a follower of Christ? It is no longer as simple as the Sunday School answer when you begin to think about the variant beliefs of different groups that hold Jesus Christ to be their savior.

I believe you are placing a belief that Jesus is God as a central core piece of knowledge for someone to be a follower of Christ. But I must question if any specific piece of knowledge is what makes us followers of Christ. If so, then which ones? How do I know I have the proper understanding or piece of knowledge to make me a true follower? Or should I base my understanding of who a follower of Jesus is by his sacrifice and not my own understanding?

I believed that Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses were not Christian even a few weeks ago. But as I am reading through the New Testament I am seeing that the Gospel is far more simple than we make it out to be. And I am no longer certain that traditionally 'heretical' beliefs disqualify someone from being a follower of Christ. This is not to say those beliefs are any more valid or true, but I can't seem to see how those beliefs or bits of understanding disqualify someone from being a follower of Christ. Is Jesus sacrifice big enough to cover even our sin of believing false things to be true, even about God?

Re: 100 Pushups - Day 3 (end of week 1)

jeffbristow — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:28:54 -0000

I never made it to the 100. :( I need to get back into this, I was really making good progress and then things got complicated with an adoption Jaime and I were trying to be a part of, and the push ups just didn't make it back onto the agenda.

Re: Why Pro-Life?

jeffbristow — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:53:39 -0000

Rick - thanks for the link. I have been really busy taking care of little Jack and am just now getting around to keeping up with comments on the blog.

I really enjoyed 'Why Pro Life?' and feel that his compassionate message is the one that will resonate best in our culture, rather than the hate filled boycotts that we hear about on TV.

Re: CECT p168+ Quad Band iClone Review

jeffbristow — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:18:22 -0000

In the United States this phone will only work with T-mobile and AT&T.

Basically, if your cellular provider uses SIM cards this phone should work since SIM cards are part of how a GSM network works.

Re: Ping.fm / Blog / Nominate Us For OWA '08!

jeffbristow — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:06:26 -0000

I have cast my vote and confirmed it. Go ping.fm!

Re: Google. iPhone. Voice search. Awesome. (If it works.)

jeffbristow — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:02:48 -0000

The 'Say Who' app does not appear to be the Google app they are talking about in this post. I actually can't seem to find the new app in the app store.

Re: Proper Christian Perspective on Obama as President

jeffbristow — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:13:45 -0000

Heath - I am glad you will be following what the government is doing now and how it can impact you and your families lives. :) Give me a call anytime and we can catch up.

Re: CECT p168+ Quad Band iClone Review

jeffbristow — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:22:16 -0000

Angel - I believe this answer is no. I do not believe you can make the texting letters any larger.

Re: Jaime @ 35 Weeks

jeffbristow — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 09:52:09 -0000

Jaime has a hunch that Jack will be born in the next two weeks. Her daily contractions are beginning to get stronger. (She has had daily contractions since week 28) So if she is right we will have 'Jack in the real world' pictures real soon as well. :)

And Amy, thanks for the feedback on my election posts. I know a good number of people that have not appreciated them much at all, so it is good to hear that they have been helpful to someone. :)

Re: He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

jeffbristow — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:56:43 -0000

You must not have actually watched Sheriff Mike Scott's statement. It is in the video above. He didn't make any linkage between Obama being Muslim or middle eastern. I have no doubt that there are 13% of American's that believe Obama is Muslim. But to conclude that through the use of someones full legal name that someone is attempting to make that association is twisted. If he had made some inflexion or additional statements surrounding his name we could come to this conclusion. But that simply is not the case in this situation. (and the video above is his full speech in complete context, not just what gets looped on the "news") He used Obama's full name for clear emphasis of one point, that McCain will surprise him on November 4th.

And Mike Scott's middle name is Joseph. His full name is Michael Joseph Scott.

As an Obama supporter I believe you should be proud of your candidates heritage. His father is Muslim. His middle name is an Arabic name. Rush Limbaugh did point these things out. (Rush has said many crazy things, but this isn't one of his crazy moments.) He didn't say that Obama is an Arab, he said that his middle name is of Arab descent. Which is true and is something all Americans should be proud of. So pointing this truth out now is also something we should hide? I find if very disturbing that Democrats and Republicans can take someones heritage and turn it into something we either try to hide or fear. I live in America. A land of diversity. And I am proud of that. I am proud that Barack Hussein Obama is a mere few steps from being President of the United States, because this makes it so clear that America has made great strides to accept differences. I am proud that America is a mix of people from all around the world, including the middle east. I wish Obama supporters could also be as proud of their candidates heritage and stop getting offended when it is brought up in any context. It is a true opportunity to talk about America's future and the strides we have made in the past 50 years. When people hear Obama supporters get so upset about things like this it makes them wonder if there is more to it than it being simply his middle name. And isn't that exactly what you don't want? For people to begin to think more like the 13% that you talk about.

To fight the ignorant you must show them the truth. The truth is Obama has a Muslim heritage through his Father. The truth is Obama has a Muslim middle name. And the truth is that Obama accepted Jesus and is now a Christian. The truth is our heritage does not define us, our choices define us. To hide these truths creates conspiracy and increased fear. The truth needs to be embraced.

Re: A Case for Obama?

jeffbristow — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:26:57 -0000

Christine - It is true that Bush did not use the abortion issue as a litmus test for all of his appointees. And he certainly did try to get some of his 'friends' onto the bench. But he did look for one thing from each appointee, that each person be a 'Constitutionalist', meaning that they will not look to other documents, individuals, countries, or personal beliefs to interpret the constitution. A lack of this view has been what is causing the Judical branch to legislate from the bench. And that is not their job, their job is to interpret the constitutionality of Legislation that the Legislative branch passes. The Judicial branch should not be guiding anti-abortion or a pro-abortion agenda through results of a trial or court hearing. Creating laws is the job of the Legislature and needs to be handed back to that branch of government. A Constitutionalist judge is far more likely to repeal Roe vs Wade so that the Legislature will need to tackle this item, rather than the courts dictating it.

I don't believe that any President should ask for anything more from their appointees than that. However, what appears to be the case more often than not, is that constitutionalists tend to be pro-life, rather than pro-choice. Roberts and Alito are pro-life, however they are unable to make any headway on any pro-life issues since the court is still balanced the other way. Two more appointments are coming up in the next 4 years (at least that appears to be the case), so the next President will have a task that can dramatically impact the pro-life cause. McCain says he is committed to appointing Judges that will be constitutionalists, which tells me that there is a strong possibility that they will repeal any issues that may have been legislated from the Judicial branch.

Chris - I will have to get back to you later to address your points regarding sin nature and abortion.

Re: Senator Joe Biden Lied 14 Times during the VP Debate

jeffbristow — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:42:19 -0000

I think Palin did better than most people thought she would do. And honestly I was hoping for anything better than her interview with Katie Couric. She did much better than I thought she would do.

I did see her dodge some questions, but I think she was trying to go back to main points that she wanted to get across. They don't give the candidates a lot of time to address any one thing. She would say things like 'I am going to go back to Energy...' because she still had more to say about it. But, it would have been nice to see her stay on point as well with the questions that were asked.

Overall I think Biden and Palin both did well. I am used to candidates not answering questions and exaggerating the truth, it seems to be what most of our politicians become very proficient at these days.

I doubt this will change anyone's mind on who to vote for, but I think Americas perception of Palin will likely be improved from this point forward.