Let us know how you would finish the sentence. I'll go first. God wants us to pray because it expresses our faith and trust in Him.

In the early Church, it was the practice of the early Apostles, like Paul, to appoint church elders in each area where they planted churches. These were the ones who had the responsibility of governing local church affairs and the teaching responsibilities in the church. They couldn't be just anybody in the church. They had to meet certain qualifications that would make them suitable for such a role. 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:6-9 gives us the lists of qualifications for choosing local church elders. "Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil." 1 Timothy 3:2-7 https://www.bible.com/bible/59/1TI.3.2-7 "If anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it." Titus 1:6-9 https://www.bible.com/bible/59/TIT.1.6-9 Here I've combined the passages into one list: 1) Above reproach- means they much live a life that their actions would not be called into question.

This is a question I've had for some time. The answer comes from understanding the difference between our justification and sanctification/ongoing fellowship with God. When we come to faith in Christ, all of our sins are legally forgiven. We don't need to continually pray for forgiveness from sins in a salvation sort of way. Instead, when Jesus tells us to pray "Forgive our sins" in the Lord's Prayer ("our daily bread" implies we are to be praying the Lord's Prayer daily, which includes forgiveness of sins), He seems to be meaning forgiveness in the sense of how our daily sins disrupt our fellowship with God, displease Him or are bringing on Fatherly discipline. "Restore to me the joy of your salvation." (Psalm 51:12) "Do not grieve the Holy Spirit." (Ephesians 4:30) "If our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence before God." (1 John 3:21). We need to confess our sins to God (and at times to other believers when the sin has become more powerful in our life) after coming to Christ not to re-attain our salvation, but to re-gain our intimate fellowship with the Lord.

Across protestant denominations, there are many beliefs about the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Baptism of the Spirit is usually used to describe a second experience after becoming a Christian where a believer receives empowerment and gifting from the Holy Spirit for ministry and their walk with Christ. It's often accompanied by speaking in tongues. There are some branches of Christianity that believe some of the gifts of the Spirit ceased with the apostles, and there are some branches who believe they did not. Thereby they do not give much credit to this experience. I grew up in mixed tradition of Baptist and Pentecostal. I can see where both sides are coming from, but no doubt take the position of a "continuationist". That means I believe that the gifts of the Spirit (all of them) are still active today in the Church. I will explain how I've come to that conclusion in another post. For purposes of this post, I wanted to point out an interesting distinction that Wayne Grudem makes in Systematic Theology. He argues that the baptism of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Scripture is actually what happens when we come to Christ. ("For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body- Jews or Greeks, slaves or free- and all were made to drink of one Spirit"- 1 Cor. 12:13). He argues it's a one time experience that happens at salvation in almost all cases. He argues that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" that many Christians have experienced later after becoming a Christian is really the "filling of the Holy Spirit" where they have greater empowerment for ministry, repentance and such. It's a bit of semantics. He argues it's important because some Christians will tend to believe that aren't "full Christians" if they haven't experienced the "baptism of the Holy Spirit". I think his distinction is good. What do you guys think?

In Christian Ethics, Wayne Grudem makes the claim that Socialism is not only unbiblical, but that it's morally evil. I was intrigued by his claim. Here's the list of reasons why he considers socialism immoral. 1) "Socialism violates biblical teaching about property". He argues that the Bible supports private property ownership by citing the 8th commandment: "Thou shall not steal". You can't steal something unless it's owned by someone else. Therefore, the Bible affirms private property ownership. 2) "Socialism violates biblical teachings about government". See 1 Peter 2:14; Deuteronomy 17:16-17; 1 Samuel 8:10-18; Ezekiel 46:18. Essentially the Bible teaches that the role of civil government is "to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good". It says nowhere that the government should own all or most of the property or the means of production in a country. 3) "Socialism violates biblical teachings about human freedom and stewardship". The Bible views us as stewards that are responsible to care for what God gives us. Therefore, socialism violates our ability to steward the resources God gives people because the state takes all ownership of resources and property. 4) "Socialism, to the extent that it seeks to equalize income, rewards people unjustly for their work and stifles innovation and productivity". People work with varying levels of skill and work ethic. Socialism rewards everyone equally. That is not just if people have varying levels of skill and work ethic. 5) "Socialism has failed to produce a vibrant economy anywhere it has been tried". 6) "Socialism incentivizes corruption in government". If the government owns businesses and distribution, most people will be working for the government. Job advancement will not be based on performance, but on whim of government officials. This creates the conditions ripe for bribes and corruption. 7) "Socialism starts with seeking to help the poor but mistakenly tries to implement substantial equality of income, which leads the nation toward poverty and tyranny". "The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests" (Grudem, Wayne. Christian Ethics, pg. 920)