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.

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?

When considering anything the Bible teaches, we should consider the "whole counsel of Scripture". Which means we should compile everything Scripture teaches on any given topic to determine what it teaches about that topic. This keeps us on guard from cherry picking Scripture to mean whatever we want it to mean. It's the foundation behind "Systematic Theology". This is a tough task. It takes a lot of time and effort. That's why it's wise for us to take advantage of resources and teachers in the Church that have already done that work. I've been reading one lately called Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem and his companion ethics book using the same method of Christian Ethics. I highly recommend both to get a foundation to understanding Christian Theology and learning to apply the whole counsel to how we should view and live our lives as Christians. Have you guys read any other good Systematic Theology books or Christian Ethics book that use this same approach (compiling everything the Bible says on topics and drawing conclusions from the "whole counsel of Scripture")?

Do you believe that the parts of the bible which, if we were to look at them outside the context of the bible would be considered mythology are really true. Or do you see them as metaphors for something else?