Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Church has lost its voice in the US

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
    C'mon, this is undergrad stuff. Are you really claiming that anyone took that argument seriously?
    Being somewhat familiar with this scholarly debate, yes, I am claiming that. And I don't understand why people get so hung up on the mustard seed thing. It seems like an obsession with hyperliteralism.

    Are you going to address my arguments about homosexuality?
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
      Dude, scripture just goes to prove that "sin" is a relative thing, open to definition (or quite often personal prejudice).
      No, no it doesn't.

      1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

      As for A.Paul, he points out that if it wasn't for the law (eg: though shall not covet) we wouldn't know what sin was/is (Rom 7:7). Therefore, in that context Saul did not sin in persecuting Christians (in fact he was being faithful to the ordinances of Moses). However, after Christ's intervention on the road to Damascus, if Saul had continued in his previous ways, by his own admission he would have sinned by failing to " love thy neighbour as thyself (cp. Rom 13:8-10).
      How on earth was Paul being faithful to the ordinances of Moses, when Moses predicted Christ, and told others to follow Him. You're not really doing that when persecuting said persons followers.

      Deuteronomy 18:15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.

      Killing and persecuting people who aren't breaking God's law isn't exactly a good thing you know. You really need to rethink a lot of this, because right now you are starting to sound .

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        No, no it doesn't.

        1 John 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
        Yes, yes it does!!!

        If you are going to appeal to scripture in defense of your opinion, you would have creditability if you cited what the apostle actually wrote and not your personal interpretation, slanted towards your own prejudices.

        1 John 3:4 "Everyone who sins breaks [God's] law; in fact, sin is lawlessness". (NIV) As I said "sin" is always relative, except when it transgresses God's explicit instructions ie: for the Jew the Law (=the Decalogue not Moses' ordinances). According to A.Paul, Christian believers are not under the Law, but under a law = the law of love. Christian believers can only sin if they transgress the law of love, bypassing Moses ordinances isn't a sin for Christians. As for the Decalogue, well as A.Paul has it, practice the law of law and you have completed God's Law.

        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        How on earth was Paul being faithful to the ordinances of Moses, when Moses predicted Christ, and told others to follow Him. You're not really doing that when persecuting said persons followers.
        Moses advocated the genocide of any person or peoples that worshiped anything other than the God of Israel. I have not come across any scripture where Moses "predicted Christ, and told others to follow Him". Deut 18:15 doesn't do it - see below...

        ps: Moses gave an instruction that required the execution of certain "prophets" and their followers.

        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        Deuteronomy 18:15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.
        You aren't big on following scripture are you. Jesus was fond of quoting Isaiah, especially the parts about people with eyes being unable to see, and people with ears being unable to hear.

        Of great interest: Moses' expectation was that God would raise up a PROPHET like unto him (Moses) not a prophet. Whats the difference: God speaks to one directly, the other has visions and dreams. And such explains why you should listen to the PROPHET like unto Moses.

        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        Killing and persecuting people who aren't breaking God's law isn't exactly a good thing you know.
        As I suggested it is a matter of relativity. A.Paul says Christians are not under the Law (have been freed from the Law). In Saul's eyes the Christians were breaking the Law and that had to be rectified or punished.

        Now if you look at history you'll find that Christendom, rightly or wrongly, has been the most tyrannical of all the religions, and is guilty of transgressing the law of love. Throughout history all religions have persecuted whoever is in conflict with them, all have transgressed the law of love. It is all relative: the victims cry persecution, whilst the perpetrators feel justified.

        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
        You really need to rethink a lot of this, because right now you are starting to sound .
        Have a read of the sermon on the mount where Jesus explains the reality of things. I'm pretty sure you think of him as in his preaching...
        Last edited by apostoli; 07-10-2015, 10:03 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
          Yes, yes it does!!!
          Nowhere is it said in Scripture that sin is relative.

          If you are going to appeal to scripture in defense of your opinion, you would have creditability if you cited what the apostle actually wrote and not your personal interpretation, slanted towards your own prejudices.

          1 John 3:4 "Everyone who sins breaks [God's] law; in fact, sin is lawlessness". (NIV) As I said "sin" is always relative, except when it transgresses God's explicit instructions ie: for the Jew the Law (=the Decalogue not Moses' ordinances). According to A.Paul, Christian believers are not under the Law, but under a law = the law of love. Christian believers can only sin if they transgress the law of love, bypassing Moses ordinances isn't a sin for Christians. As for the Decalogue, well as A.Paul has it, practice the law of law and you have completed God's Law.
          You really are

          I copied the verse exactly as it is written from this page.

          If adding an interpretation lowers credibility, then you have 0 right now with that hypocrisy of yours to boot.

          Moses advocated the genocide of any person or peoples that worshiped anything other than the God of Israel. I have not come across any scripture where Moses "predicted Christ, and told others to follow Him". Deut 18:15 doesn't do it - see below...
          First, no, Moses did not. This bald assertion id dismissed as such. Second that's a Messianic prophecy, so the prophet spoken of was Jesus.


          ps: Moses gave an instruction that required the execution of certain "prophets" and their followers.
          False prophets were to be stoned, your point?

          You aren't big on following scripture are you. Jesus was fond of quoting Isaiah, especially the parts about people with eyes being unable to see, and people with ears being unable to hear.

          Of great interest: Moses' expectation was that God would raise up a PROPHET like unto him (Moses) not a prophet. Whats the difference: God speaks to one directly, the other has visions and dreams. And such explains why you should listen to the PROPHET like unto Moses.
          That's the reason this is seen as a Messianic prophecy. Jesus would be the one who "spoke to God face to face" and was "like Moses". Epic fail here.

          As I suggested it is a matter of relativity. A.Paul says Christians are not under the Law (have been freed from the Law). In Saul's eyes the Christians were breaking the Law and that had to be rectified or punished.
          Sin is not a matter of relativity, neither is truth. Paul even believed himself to be "worst of sinners" because of what he did when he persecuted Christians.

          12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me trustworthy, appointing me to his service. 13 Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14 The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

          15 Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

          Now if you look at history you'll find that Christendom, rightly or wrongly, has been the most tyrannical of all the religions, and is guilty of transgressing the law of love. Throughout history all religions have persecuted whoever is in conflict with them, all have transgressed the law of love. It is all relative: the victims cry persecution, whilst the perpetrators feel justified.
          Why do you even identify as a Christian if you think they are the worst group out there? Never mind, that's a rhetorical question. You might want to look at the history of Islam while you're thinking over that one though.

          Have a read of the sermon on the mount where Jesus explains the reality of things. I'm pretty sure you think of him as in his preaching...
          The Sermon on the Mount says nothing about sin being relative, nor does it support your craziness in any way at all. This will be my last response. It's pretty clear that you are and only want to read in your own meaning into not only the past, but into the Bible as well.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
            Nowhere is it said in Scripture that sin is relative.
            "Sin" simply means "missing the mark", which is commonly understood as operating below God's standard. Whilst the word "relative" is not found in scripture, there are plenty of examples where YHWH ignores the transgressions of people and instead exalted them. Two come immediately to mind: Abraham (Is incest a sin?) and David (Is adultery and murder a sin?).

            Comment


            • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
              "Sin" simply means "missing the mark", which is commonly understood as operating below God's standard. Whilst the word "relative" is not found in scripture, there are plenty of examples where YHWH ignores the transgressions of people and instead exalted them. Two come immediately to mind: Abraham (Is incest a sin?) and David (Is adultery and murder a sin?).
              Abraham's case is before incest was considered against God's law. Given that Adam and Eve were the only two people on the planet at one point there is good reason for this not always being the case. However, this assumes that Abraham was being honest about Sarah in that passage. He hasn't been honest about Sarah in recent passages. Not only that, but Sarah isn't mentioned as a descendant of Terah earlier in Genesis. For David, yes it was a major sin, one he was called out for, and subsequently repented of.

              2 Samuel 11:1 [ Bathsheba, David’s Great Sin ]* Then it happened in the spring, at the time when kings go out to battle, that David sent Joab and his servants with him and all Israel, and they destroyed the sons of Ammon and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed at Jerusalem.

              Samuel 11:26 Now when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah her husband was dead, she mourned for her husband. 27 When the time of mourning was over, David sent and [j]brought her to his house and she became his wife; then she bore him a son. But the thing that David had done was evil in the sight of the Lord.

              Samuel 12:12 Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and [g]under the sun.’” 13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has [h]taken away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.” 15 So Nathan went to his house.

              You have a serious reading comprehension problem if you think that David did not sin with Bathsheba.

              Where was David exalted because of murder? Where was Abraham exalted because of being with Sarah?

              I know I said my previous response was the last, but I needed something to do, and this was more than adequate for taking a bit of time off my hands. I'm going to do my best to not respond after this though.

              One piece of advice, you might want to actually read up on the OT. Plenty to learn there, and plenty you apparently either didn't know, or have forgotten entirely.

              *The underlined is not in the Bible, but is part of the heading in of the chapter in the translation cited.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                "Sin" simply means "missing the mark", which is commonly understood as operating below God's standard. Whilst the word "relative" is not found in scripture, there are plenty of examples where YHWH ignores the transgressions of people and instead exalted them. Two come immediately to mind: Abraham (Is incest a sin?) and David (Is adultery and murder a sin?).
                To me, your making the mistake of saying because the Bible records an event means God endorses it. The Bible is a true history of what happened but not all that happened is endorsed by God. Once I came to understand that God choses us despite who we are and not because of who we are, this makes sense. God is removing any claim that we are saved and in fellowship with Him because of our merit. He's picking badly behaving people and making something out of them. This shows He can do the same with us.

                I don't think God ignored any of those transgressions either. Look at Abraham's life and you'll see when Sarah died, he, Isaac, and Sarah were all living in separate locations. I certainly won't want to go through the misery that was David's last years. I think even though God did call them out for a special purpose, He let them suffer the earthly consequences of their sins. As a New Testament example, Jesus forgave the thief on the cross but thief still died that day.
                "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
                  To me, your making the mistake of saying because the Bible records an event means God endorses it. The Bible is a true history of what happened but not all that happened is endorsed by God. Once I came to understand that God choses us despite who we are and not because of who we are, this makes sense. God is removing any claim that we are saved and in fellowship with Him because of our merit. He's picking badly behaving people and making something out of them. This shows He can do the same with us.

                  I don't think God ignored any of those transgressions either. Look at Abraham's life and you'll see when Sarah died, he, Isaac, and Sarah were all living in separate locations. I certainly won't want to go through the misery that was David's last years. I think even though God did call them out for a special purpose, He let them suffer the earthly consequences of their sins. As a New Testament example, Jesus forgave the thief on the cross but thief still died that day.
                  Thankyou ThoughtfulMonk. I agree with everything you say.

                  I said "YHWH ignores the transgressions of people and instead exalted them". Possibly I should have used a word other than "ignore", "cover" is used by the prophets for what I meant.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    Being somewhat familiar with this scholarly debate, yes, I am claiming that. And I don't understand why people get so hung up on the mustard seed thing. It seems like an obsession with hyperliteralism.
                    The mustard seed thing is an excellent example of how to do proper exegesis. Focusing on things ancillary to the topic at hand due to circumstances doesn't constitute "error."

                    You are engaging in the same kind of hyperliteralism that people do with the mustard seed thing when using the same kind of principle to claim that Jesus validated this woman's 5 marriages when he was more interested in having this woman bring the town out to hear Jesus speak.

                    Are you going to address my arguments about homosexuality?
                    What is there to argue? We agree that homosexual acts are sin.

                    Whether one is convinced or not (and I really am not wanting to into divorce as we are fairly down a tangent), my overall point is that the issue of divorce, remarriage, and adultery is not quite as straightforward as the issue of homosexuality as a hermeneutical case can be made.
                    Not sure what's not straightforward about divorce. The only "hermeneutical" questions are whether adultery is a valid reason for divorce, and whether marrying a divorced woman is an ongoing act of adultery.

                    Paul is quite clear in 1 Corinthians 7 that a separated couple should remain single or be reconciled to each other, unless one was not a Christian and unwilling to be married to a Christian.

                    The woman at the well argument is a non-starter.

                    Comment


                    • Hello themuzicman,

                      I've been thinking on your original post...

                      Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                      It's been happening for a very long time, but I think this week put the final nerve stimulating the figurative final vocal chord to rest. The Church is irrelevant in our culture. If the ending of traditional marriage happens with barely a whisper of discontent, what else is there?

                      ...So, how about you? Are you uniting or dividing?
                      I agree with you that "The Church is irrelevant in our [modern Western] culture". In my experience, in the Protestant world, for those that still go to Church, it has become more of a social experience than a devotional thing (consider the enormous popularity, across the world, of the meta-church Hill Song). As for the Catholic and Orthodox churches, because of its resistance to modern trends, things are static. But the reality is these Churches are declining in line with the aging of their congregations. Though in my country, the RCC is experiencing a bit of a resurgence amongst young professionals.

                      I detect that the reason you raised this thread is the recent legal recognition of "same sex marriage" in the USA. Imo, if it is worth the paper it is written on, a natural consequence of the USA's Bill of Rights. Hence your high courts resolution...there was no other choice...

                      In my country we do not have a " Bill of Rights", our rights and responsibilities are defined by common law, consequently our current laws do not recognise "same sex marriage". Pressure is being mounted to change the legislation but the community is divided and so there is talk of putting it to the people either as a plebiscite (arbitrates a change to contentious legislation. Imu, the result is non-binding on government) or as a referendum (arbitrates a change to the constitution. Imu, the result is binding on government). The RCC has become very militant in opposing any change to our "Marriage Act", which currently defines marriage as between a man and a woman (an earlier version simply said that marriage was between two consenting persons who were of legal age, but that was changed in 2004). Given their lack of profile in the public media, the other churches are silent in their opposition. Several protestant churches are actively supporting the fight for gay rights (Immediately coming to mind: The Uniting Church in Australia, a conflagration of Methodists and Presbyterians, have had openly gay clergy for a very long time,).

                      So what is it about Oz society that has made being gay acceptable. Imo, what is reported as the widespread practice of sodomy and fellatio amongst heterosexuals! So what differentiates gays and straights these days? Except for choice of partner, nothing as far as I can tell.

                      ___________________________

                      Just as an aside concerning divorce and adultery.

                      Mark 10:11-12

                      11 [Jesus said], “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits porneia against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits porneia.”

                      Imu, moicheuō (and derivatives) is the more common word for adultery. So why did Mark use porneia (illicit sexual intercourse)? I have my theories...
                      http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/...?strongs=G4202
                      Last edited by apostoli; 07-14-2015, 12:33 AM.

                      Comment


                      • If you want to know why we've lost influence, read the Barna organization's book "unchristian." They document pretty clearly why the change in public attitude towards Christianity has occurred. It's because Christians are widely perceived as being unchristian. A couple of generations ago, people felt that while the idea of God may be unprovable, Christians supported things that mattered such as justice, forgiveness and reconciliation. Today they no longer feel that way, and the Barna folks feel the accusations are justified. I do think that what the non-Christian public sees of us justifies it.

                        The public perception is that we were on the wrong side of every major moral battle in the US: slavery, integration, the role of women, abuse of women and children, and the rights of gays. Why should such a group have any influence? Of course the whole Church wasn't on the wrong side of any of that, but enough were (and still are) to make one wonder just how much supernatural influence is really present in the Church. Here's a pretty good statement of the situation from a non-Christian perspective: http://weeklysift.com/2015/07/06/you...to-be-a-bigot/.

                        I'm old enough to have been around during the civil rights era. The parallelism between conservative statements and actions today and during that period is really embarrassing. You can say "this time we're right," but it's hard to see why anyone on the outside should pay attention to it. Look at the statements today about abolishing marriage rather than allowing gays to participate, compared to the old let's close schools rather than integrate them. Yet another confrontation between Alabama leadership and the Supreme Court. You couldn't have constructed a scenario to discredit conservatives better than this if you tried.
                        Last edited by hedrick; 07-14-2015, 07:18 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                          If you want to know why we've lost influence, read the Barna organization's book "unchristian." They document pretty clearly why the change in public attitude towards Christianity has occurred. It's because Christians are widely perceived as being unchristian. A couple of generations ago, people felt that while the idea of God may be unprovable, Christians supported things that mattered such as justice, forgiveness and reconciliation. Today they no longer feel that way, and the Barna folks feel the accusations are justified. I do think that what the non-Christian public sees of us justifies it.
                          That, of course, is a generalization. There's still a remnant.

                          The public perception is that we were on the wrong side of every major moral battle in the US: slavery, integration, the role of women, abuse of women and children, and the rights of gays. Why should such a group have any influence? Of course the whole Church wasn't on the wrong side of any of that, but enough were (and still are) to make one wonder just how much supernatural influence is really present in the Church. Here's a pretty good statement of the situation from a non-Christian perspective: http://weeklysift.com/2015/07/06/you...to-be-a-bigot/.
                          According to the world, we're on "the wrong side" of moral issues like sin and repentance.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                            I'm old enough to have been around during the civil rights era. The parallelism between conservative statements and actions today and during that period is really embarrassing. You can say "this time we're right," but it's hard to see why anyone on the outside should pay attention to it.
                            So, to be clear, which side of the "homosexuality is sin" side are you on?
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              So, to be clear, which side of the "homosexuality is sin" side are you on?
                              I'm not responding to this because it's going to derail the discussion. The question isn't whether same-gender sex is always sin, but why people aren't paying attention to Christian voices. My point is that the impression is that Christians don't have the kind of track record that would encourage people to pay attention.

                              Don't you see why people see parallels between the confrontations in Alabama on civil rights and the current one? You don't have to accept homosexuality as OK to realize how it looks.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                                I'm not responding to this because it's going to derail the discussion.
                                So, "by not responding" the way you did, you answered the question.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X