Church of the Namby-Pamby [Archive]

View Full Version : Church of the Namby-Pamby

MercyBurst

11th August 2007, 07:02 AM

I have a writeup I'd like you all to review. Am I too harsh? Moderators, am I breaking any rules here? Thanks:

Church of the Namby-Pamby

Preamble

Jesus died for sinners. The purpose of the church is to spread this redeeming message to all sinners. Everyone sins and comes short of the mark. The church is supposed to be open to all sinners. Some of them just happen to be homosexuals. Homosexuals can be saved by Jesus Christ like any other sinner, just as the apostle Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 6:11 (http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B46C006.htm#V11)
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Christians welcome homosexuals to church, but we do not welcome doctrine that promotes a sinful lifestyle. Some liberal-leaning churches have embraced sin rather than the sinner and that is what this article is about.

Introduction

I hesitate to use a label like "namby-pamby" for our liberal-leaning protestant church denominations. I don't want to offend someone, but the description seems to fit. Merriam-Webster's defines it as "an insipid weakling who is foolishly sentimental." The picture here is a church that lacks a biblical message, and its purpose is to make the members feel good about themselves, and about their sinful lifestyles. No change is needed in the heart of the believer, rather everyone is being told they are fine just like they are -- that Jesus makes sin irrelevant -- or even worse than that -- nobody was a sinner to start with.

Biblical Background

Someone might ask why the sin-affirming liberal-doctrine is so bad. There are many answers but let me present one that gives the picture. It's the Church at Corinth, and it's in the bible. This church was well known for its temple prostitutes and sexual perversions. As the bible put it -- even the world shuddered about the Church at Corinth. The apostle Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 5:1 (http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B46C005.htm#V1)
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

Yes, a sickening picture where fornication was rampant. The Church of Corinth was utterly destroyed. Today, there is no Church of Corinth -- there are NO NEW MEMBERS. A dead church has NO MEMBERS, nobody sitting in the pews, nobody even preaches there anymore. And a dead church is measured by its MEMBERSHIP -- members keep a church alive. Are we getting the picture?

Section 2

Looking at the attendance numbers, it is clear that the liberal wing of the church is dieing. The following attendance statistics came from Church Executive Magazine (http://www.churchexecutive.com/) regarding the main line american church denominations.

The winners typically have taken the more conservative approach:

1. The Catholic Church, 67,820,833 members, reporting an increase of .83 percent.
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,999,177 members, reporting an increase of 1.74 percent.
10. Assemblies of God, 2,779,095 members, reporting an increase of 1.81 percent.
24. The Orthodox Church in America, 1,064,000 members, reporting an increase of 6.40 percent.

Churches with no change:

5. The Church of God in Christ, 5,499,875 members, no increase or decrease reported.
6. National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., 5,000,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.
8. National Baptist Convention of America, 3,500,000, no increase or decrease reported.
11. African Methodist Episcopal Church, 2,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.
12. National Missionary Baptist Convention of America, 2,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.
13. Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc., 2,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported
16. Churches of Christ, 1,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.
17. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, 1,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.
18. Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc., 1,500,000 members, no increase or decrease reported.
19. The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 1,432,795 members, no increase or decrease reported.
22. Baptist Bible Fellowship International, 1,200,000, no increase or decrease reported.
23. Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, 1,071,615 members, no increase or decrease reported.

The losers:

2. The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,267,494 members, reporting a decrease of 1.05 percent.
3. The United Methodist Church, 8,186,254 members, reporting a decrease of .79 percent.
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 4,930,429, reporting a decrease of 1.09 percent.
9. Presbyterian Church (USA), 3,189,573 members, reporting a decrease of 1.60 percent.
14. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), 2,463,747, reporting a decrease or 1.01 percent.
15. Episcopal Church, 2,463,747, reporting a decrease of 1.55 percent.
20. American Baptist Churches in the USA, 1,432,840, reporting a decrease of .57 percent.
21. United Church of Christ, 1,265,786, reporting a decrease of 2.38 percent.
25. Jehovah's Witnesses, 1,029,902 members, reporting a decrease of 1.07 members.

Section 3

The news headlines and analysis tell us why the membership numbers are falling for these churches:

" Nashville's largest predominantly gay and lesbian church is joining a national Protestant denomination that has seen dozens of churches leave in the last year because of its support for same-sex unions.Holy Trinity Community Church in west Nashville officially will join the United Church of Christ in an installation ceremony Sunday. "

"The just-elected Episcopal presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, is a one-woman combination of all these things, having voted for Robinson, blessed same-sex couples in her Nevada diocese, prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ's divinity, to address her priests."

"Katherine Schori, leader for the Episcopal Church denomination, calls homosexuality a gift rather than sin as Gene Robinson is ordinated."

"Who we are... Gay-affirming Baptists? No, this is not an oxymoron!Ten years ago, after the lgbt community had been dealt yet another blow by members of their denomination, a group of American Baptist pastors decided that it was time to stand up and declare their affirmation of glbt people."

"Church defies Presbyterian order to ban gay preachers."

"NEWS ANALYSIS: Methodists Divided on Gay Rights
Church leaders anguish over same-sex unions."

"Yet many conservative Presbyterians believe that passage of the so-called Fidelity and Chastity Amendment will end more than two decades of division over homosexuality. Describing the ordaining of gays as a "direct challenge of the scriptures," the Rev. Jack Harderer (http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/23/gay.preachers/harderer.jpg), a supporter of the amendment, said, "It has boiled down to the real watershed issue: (do) we believe in the authority of the scripture or do we not?"

"Lutheran leaders look to ease stance on gay pastors.

The Lutheran proposal, which is being spearheaded by Bishop Margaret G. Payne of Massachusetts, would maintain an official requirement that gays and lesbians abstain from homosexual relationships in order to qualify as ministers. But it would allow local church leaders to "refrain from disciplining" congregations that disregard that requirement and hire "partnered" gay or lesbian pastors."

"three years ago, the Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe." "

"The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "re-imagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion. "

"When a church doesn't take itself seriously, neither do its members. It is hard to believe that as recently as 1960, members of mainline churches — Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans and the like — accounted for 40% of all American Protestants. Today, it's more like 12% (17 million out of 135 million). Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state main liners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return. "

"When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church."

"Despite the fact that median Sunday attendance at Episcopal churches is 80 worshipers, the Episcopal Church, as a whole, is financially equipped to carry on for some time, thanks to its inventory of vintage real estate and huge endowments left over from the days (no more!) when it was the Republican Party at prayer. Furthermore, it has offset some of its demographic losses by attracting disaffected liberal Catholics and gays and lesbians. The less endowed Presbyterian Church USA is in deeper trouble. Just before its general assembly in Birmingham, it announced that it would eliminate 75 jobs to meet a $9.15-million budget cut at its headquarters, the third such round of job cuts in four years. "

"The Anglican Communion is made up mostly of Bible-believing conservatives, while the majority of Episcopal parishes are characterized as liberal. The Episcopal Church has lost thousands of members over the years. Once 4 million strong, the church now has 870,000 parishioners, Schofield said."

Section 4

The following analysis comes from Rasmussen Reports. In summary it says the liberal congregation supports the ordination of gay-lesbian pastors, but the members that vote that way aren't really interested in going to church.

From Rasmussen Reports June 30, 2006

Churchgoers Disapprove of Gay and Lesbian Pastors 86% Agree Government Should Stay Out of It.

Is it appropriate for gay and lesbian church members to serve as pastors and bishops in a Christian Church? Two thirds (67%) of those who attend Church weekly say no. Just 27% of those faithful worshippers say yes.

Self-identified Evangelical Christians oppose gay and lesbian pastors by an 80% to 15% margin. Other Protestants oppose such pastors by a 2-to-1 margin while Catholics are nearly evenly divided.

The only demographic group to favor gay and lesbian pastors are those who rarely or never attend church. Among this segment of the population, 49% believe such pastors are appropriate. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree.

Among those who attend churches that are growing, just 26% believe it is appropriate to appoint gay and lesbian church leaders. Sixty-six percent (66%) are opposed.

Opinion is more evenly divided in churches with declining attendance.Forty-four percent (44%) of those in declining churches say it is appropriate for gay and lesbian leadership appointments. Forty percent (40%) disagree.

Section 5

This section will be devoted specifically to the Episopal Church's delimma. Excerpts come from Reverend Earl Fox and his blog on the The Road to Emmaus (http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdMp.htm).

Episcopal Crisis (http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Epis/Crisis.htm)

This is a reflective write-up by Tucker Carlson, episcopalian, news anchor, commentator, and pundit for MNBC. It looks at the progressive downward spiraling path taken by anglican leadership in america.

Why the Episcopal Church has Self-Destructed (http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Epis/ECUSASlfDstrct.htm)

"Bishop William Winterrowd ("In the Head, but not the Heart" 6/4/06), makes, I think, precisely the error which has brought the Episcopal Church to its demise -- pitting the legislative against the reconciliation mode, thus putting unity above truth. "

The Episcopal Tragedy and the Coming of Clarity (http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Epis/EpscTrgdy.htm)

"I am an Episcopal priest who has labored in that vineyard for over forty years, now watching the Church I loved and cherished self-destruct. There will be a resurrection of sorts, that is a division with one side conforming, more or less, to orthodoxy."

Conclusion

Jesus died for sinners, and that includes all of us. Carnal doctrine, on the otherhand, preaches that we are not sinners or that sin no longer matters. Sin-pandering "gay theology" is carnal preaching at its worst. If you claim the name of Christ I hope you haven't fallen for this destructive lie.

Homosexuals have a moral challenge that is difficult. Don't surrender them to satan by telling them it's ok to practice this sexual perversion. It doesn't matter what humanistic psychologists or political special interests say about it. They aren't the experts on morality -- God is.

Don't be a Christian that goes for PC instead of JC. The bible is clear on this issue. There IS NO debate. Those that raise issues with the bible translations show their own ignorance. The bible and Jewish history both tell us in very clear terms that sex with the same sex IS SIN under ALL circumstances.

Good day and God bless.

SingingElk

11th August 2007, 03:03 PM

No one has weighed in on your post so far. I am still fairly new to this website so I don't know what the rules are about controversial postings such as this.

The church as a whole is suffering from the blight of permissiveness. Every mainstream denomination has its conservatives-those people that support the sanctity of life and the biblical definition of family.

Much of the problem is due to the sin nature of mankind. People want to do what is convenient instead of following God's law. The problem is more prevalent in some denominations, leading to stagnation and even regression. The leadership doesn't help matters any when they endorse sin.

When they go redefining the nature of God from Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is usually how this slippery slope begins. Sometimes it starts with permitting sin. Both are bedfellows. If you find one, you'll find the other.

MercyBurst

11th August 2007, 03:46 PM

GratiaCorpusChristi

11th August 2007, 05:13 PM

1. The Catholic Church, 67,820,833 members, reporting an increase of .83 percent.
4. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 5,999,177 members, reporting an increase of 1.74 percent.
10. Assemblies of God, 2,779,095 members, reporting an increase of 1.81 percent.
24. The Orthodox Church in America, 1,064,000 members, reporting an increase of 6.40 percent.
2. The Southern Baptist Convention, 16,267,494 members, reporting a decrease of 1.05 percent.
3. The United Methodist Church, 8,186,254 members, reporting a decrease of .79 percent.
7. Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 4,930,429, reporting a decrease of 1.09 percent.
9. Presbyterian Church (USA), 3,189,573 members, reporting a decrease of 1.60 percent.
14. The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS), 2,463,747, reporting a decrease or 1.01 percent.
15. Episcopal Church, 2,463,747, reporting a decrease of 1.55 percent.
20. American Baptist Churches in the USA, 1,432,840, reporting a decrease of .57 percent.
21. United Church of Christ, 1,265,786, reporting a decrease of 2.38 percent.
25. Jehovah's Witnesses, 1,029,902 members, reporting a decrease of 1.07 members.

Wow, yeah, those darn liberal Southern Baptists and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod! Those conservative Orthodox!

Check your facts. LCMS, my church, is the most conservative of probably all mainlines. Heck, it was geocentrist in the 1920s.

There are other factors at work here.

MrJim

11th August 2007, 06:37 PM

Wow, yeah, those darn liberal Southern Baptists and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod! Those conservative Orthodox!

Check your facts. LCMS, my church, is the most conservative of probably all mainlines. Heck, it was geocentrist in the 1920s.

There are other factors at work here.

That was kinda my thoughts.

The Orthodox & Catholic, aren't they considered members after a confirmation sort of service in their childhood?

LCMS certainly caught my eye as being in the decline...HOWEVER consider:

The numbers game doesn't mean much, in fact it can be said that numbers can mean that's where the crowd goes~the "wide path" so to speak. I recall a passage in John 6 where Jesus actually chased off some disciples.

MercyBurst

11th August 2007, 10:16 PM

Wow, yeah, those darn liberal Southern Baptists and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod! Those conservative Orthodox!

The correlation isn't exactly 100% but there is no question about the two biggest losers which are the UCC (-2.38%/yr) and the EpiscoPALS (-1.55%/yr) From the Rasmussen Reports, there is no question that poor attendence correlates with liberal views on gay ministry. Earl Foxe showed that the liberal gay-affirming Episcopal parishes also had the worst tithing records.

I'm currently SB. Ever heard of the Fellowship of the Brethren? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Brethren) A good friend of mine left his SB church when he found out where the money was going. He was a member for many many years:

from the wiki:

Since the end of the Second World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War), church and member positions on social issues have caused further divisions between congregations, districts, and individuals within the church. Particularly difficult issues which have been the source of much debate and division include the authority of the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible), the ordination of women, tolerance of homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality), and the promotion of ecumenicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical).

https://www.christiangays.com/links/denomination.shtml

Check your facts. LCMS, my church, is the most conservative of probably all mainlines. Heck, it was geocentrist in the 1920s.

There are other factors at work here.

I think the Lutheran church is liberal-leaning. I quoted the headlines from the newspaper:

"Lutheran leaders look to ease stance on gay pastors.

The Lutheran proposal, which is being spearheaded by Bishop Margaret G. Payne of Massachusetts, would maintain an official requirement that gays and lesbians abstain from homosexual relationships in order to qualify as ministers. But it would allow local church leaders to "refrain from disciplining" congregations that disregard that requirement and hire "partnered" gay or lesbian pastors."

So did I get it wrong about the Lutherans tolerating churches that hire partnered gay and lesbian pastors. Wow --That IS liberal!!!

Tangeloper

12th August 2007, 09:41 AM

So did I get it wrong about the Lutherans tolerating churches that hire partnered gay and lesbian pastors. Wow --That IS liberal!!!

Actually, íf I am not mistaken, the ELCA vs. the WELS, LCMS are NOT considered part of the same church -- being the Lutheran church.

I do know from experience in an LCMS church that homosexuality is not condoned. And, as far as the female bishop -- Never heard of one in the LCMS. I read on another thread that WELS & LCMS are completely separate from the ELCA. As such, simply saying "Lutherans" is a little off-the-mark, IMO.

Also, remember that the media is prone to not understand what they write about -- especially when it comes to religion(s)!

I definitely invite those still active within the Lutheran church to explain further especially in regards to how the different groups intereact. I've heard that the LCMS & WELS interact, but that the ELCA is pretty much on its own out there (and when I say -- out there, I mean "OUT" there...)

ADDITION:

I found the following which might explain to you the differences in Lutheran churches:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Lutherans-956/Lutheran-vs-Lutheran.htm
Expert: Gordon F. Stoneburner (http://www.allexperts.com/ep/956-10286/Lutherans/Gordon-F-Stoneburner.htm)
Date: 11/21/2004
Subject: Lutheran vs Lutheran

Question
What & why are there differences in Lutheran churches. I have been Catholic for years, but no longer believe in a few of the Catholic teachings. I was seriously considering attending the Lutheran church until I found there are different Lutheran churches and beliefs. If this is true, would you explain the differences so that I can decide which is right for me? Thanks very much!

Answer
Melinda:
The Lutheran churches are as follows:
WELS - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
LCMS - Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

My background is both LCMS and ELCA with my father currently WELS, so I
can answer your question fairly well.

The difference between Lutheran churches is major! I will attempt to point out some of the major areas:

ELCA: teaches salvation outside of Chrisitanity, favors women pastors,
leans towards homosexual rights and ordination, teaches evolution, and is
fairly pro-abortion.

WELS: Scripture alone is rule, therefore, in Christ's words, Christ is
the only way to salvation; does not favor women pastors (or voters),
opposes gay rights and views homosexuality as a sin, teaches creation, and
is strongly pro-life.

LCMS: Scripture alone is rule, therefore, in Christ's words, Christ is
the only way to salvation; does not favor women pastors but allows women to vote in the church, opposes gay rights and views homosexuality as a sin, teaches creation, and
is strongly pro-life.

The basic difference rests on the differences in their views of scripture.
ELCA has moved towards a view that "scripture was written for that time
and place", whereas LCMS & WELS maintains that scripture is constant for all
times and places.

A great book for comparing all the diferences is "What's Going on Among
the Lutherans?" by Northwestern Publishing House (WELS).

The areas of agreement are: infant baptism and Christ's presence in
communion. That's about it!

Let me know if I can be of further help.

In Christ's Service,

Gordon Stoneburner

MrJim

12th August 2007, 11:03 AM

Great post tangeloper

MercyBurst

12th August 2007, 01:21 PM

Actually, íf I am not mistaken, the ELCA vs. the WELS, LCMS are NOT considered part of the same church -- being the Lutheran church.

I do know from experience in an LCMS church that homosexuality is not condoned. And, as far as the female bishop -- Never heard of one in the LCMS. I read on another thread that WELS & LCMS are completely separate from the ELCA. As such, simply saying "Lutherans" is a little off-the-mark, IMO.

Also, remember that the media is prone to not understand what they write about -- especially when it comes to religion(s)!

I definitely invite those still active within the Lutheran church to explain further especially in regards to how the different groups intereact. I've heard that the LCMS & WELS interact, but that the ELCA is pretty much on its own out there (and when I say -- out there, I mean "OUT" there...)

ADDITION:

I found the following which might explain to you the differences in Lutheran churches:
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Lutherans-956/Lutheran-vs-Lutheran.htm
Expert: Gordon F. Stoneburner (http://www.allexperts.com/ep/956-10286/Lutherans/Gordon-F-Stoneburner.htm)
Date: 11/21/2004
Subject: Lutheran vs Lutheran

Question
What & why are there differences in Lutheran churches. I have been Catholic for years, but no longer believe in a few of the Catholic teachings. I was seriously considering attending the Lutheran church until I found there are different Lutheran churches and beliefs. If this is true, would you explain the differences so that I can decide which is right for me? Thanks very much!

Answer
Melinda:
The Lutheran churches are as follows:
WELS - Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
LCMS - Lutheran Church Missouri Synod
ELCA - Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

My background is both LCMS and ELCA with my father currently WELS, so I
can answer your question fairly well.

The difference between Lutheran churches is major! I will attempt to point out some of the major areas:

ELCA: teaches salvation outside of Chrisitanity, favors women pastors,
leans towards homosexual rights and ordination, teaches evolution, and is
fairly pro-abortion.

WELS: Scripture alone is rule, therefore, in Christ's words, Christ is
the only way to salvation; does not favor women pastors (or voters),
opposes gay rights and views homosexuality as a sin, teaches creation, and
is strongly pro-life.

LCMS: Scripture alone is rule, therefore, in Christ's words, Christ is
the only way to salvation; does not favor women pastors but allows women to vote in the church, opposes gay rights and views homosexuality as a sin, teaches creation, and
is strongly pro-life.

The basic difference rests on the differences in their views of scripture.
ELCA has moved towards a view that "scripture was written for that time
and place", whereas LCMS & WELS maintains that scripture is constant for all
times and places.

A great book for comparing all the diferences is "What's Going on Among
the Lutherans?" by Northwestern Publishing House (WELS).

The areas of agreement are: infant baptism and Christ's presence in
communion. That's about it!

Let me know if I can be of further help.

In Christ's Service,

Gordon Stoneburner

Thanks for the information. So is the ELCA denomination growing, being they are more liberal than the others?

MercyBurst

12th August 2007, 01:34 PM

ok I have the ELCA statistics, and I quote from their own report:

http://www.elca.org/lutheranpartners/archives/0409_06.html

The overall decline in mainline denominations can be blamed on a number of factors. New groups and ministries for new people can form the basis of a congregational mission strategy that reverses this trend.

The ELCA, like most mainline denominations, is in steady decline. Our church and its antecedent bodies have been in decline since the mid-1960s. Yet, ironically, this church currently seems preoccupied by such issues as sexuality and the Lutheran / Episcopalian Called to Common Mission. I believe it is essential that we face a much more fundamental and crucial challenge — namely, our apparent failure when it comes to congregational evangelism.

Well what can I say? They have no message to evangelize with. tangeloper said they preached the following doctrine:

"ELCA: teaches salvation outside of Chrisitanity, favors women pastors, leans towards homosexual rights and ordination, teaches evolution, and is fairly pro-abortion."

Yep, the answer is: NO NEWS -- that's why they are dying -- no news about our Savior Jesus Christ. What will they evangelize? Will they go out on the streets and bless abortion, evolution, and gay marriage?

The relevant information is easily accessible on the ELCA's Web site under the Department for Research and Evaluation. To begin with, membership and worship attendance are down. Since 1991, only 25 of the 65 ELCA synods have experienced membership gains. When it comes to worship attendance, from 1997 to 2000, 50 of our 65 synods had more congregations declining than growing. Since the creation of the ELCA in 1988, we have seen a drop not only in membership and worship attendance but also in confirmations, Sunday school attendance, infant baptisms, and adult baptisms.

Contributing Factors

So what factors contribute to this slow but steady decline?

First, there are cultural and demographic factors. As already mentioned, we share our decline with virtually all mainline denominations. In fact, our decline is less severe than that of the Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, and Presbyterians (USA). We live in a culture that seems increasingly skeptical of the institutional church, and many Americans are registering their skepticism by choosing not to be involved in any local congregation. However, the American public remains open, by and large, to the possibility of church involvement, with a solid majority still indicating some kind of church affiliation. The growth over the past 30 years of most evangelical/conservative denominations confirms this.

Second, the ELCA has been dealing with controversial social issues as a denomination. Along with the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Episcopalians, we are in the midst of a prolonged internal debate over issues related to homosexuality. And depending on what develops with the ELCA's Churchwide Assembly vote on this matter in 2005, the effect on our church's growth or decline could be significant.

Third, a significant percentage of our congregations are located in declining rural and inner-city communities. The stark demographic and economic realities have profound (and sometimes irreversible) effects on congregations located in these settings.

MrJim

12th August 2007, 01:39 PM

Yep, the answer is: NO NEWS -- that's why they are dying -- no news about our Savior Jesus Christ. What will they evangelize? Will they go out on the streets and bless abortion, evolution, and gay marriage?

[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Well I guess there's always the "love and tolerance" aspect of it...but is it worth getting up on Sunday morning for that? And I hear the universalist/unitarians are more fun anyhow;)

ContentInHim

12th August 2007, 02:14 PM

Thanks, MercyBurst, for the info! It's sad, isn't it - a strong message and the good news saves by droves but the liberal churches refuse to preach it. :cry:

zoziw

12th August 2007, 02:46 PM

There is no way that the LCMS should be included on a list of liberal churches, they are perhaps the most conservative denomination in North America.

Still, the general trend in both Canada and the US is that conservative churches are growing and liberal churches are shrinking.

When I speak to the average pew going member of a liberal church they are usually much older than I am, have been attending that denomination for many years and are frequently unhappy with the direction things have gone. In many cases, switching churches after so much blood, sweat and tears over their church is very difficult for them.

I mean, think about all of the time, money, emotion and experiences that they have invested over, in some cases, 25+ years of attending the same church. Leaving that behind is not easy.

We need to focus on how to help them make a difficult transition to a new church and, in many cases, a much less liturgical church (I still miss the liturgy of the liberal church I was raised in despite having been an evangelical for around 15 years).

The big deal right now is homosexuality, but once that has settled down the extremists in these denominations will find something else to dredge up and shove down people's throats...and make no mistake about it, liberals are much more effective at pushing their beliefs on others than we will ever be despite that being a common criticism.

With each new "agenda" that comes up, more people will throw their hands up and walk away. The challenge for us is to help them transition to a conservative church rather than stop attending altogether.

MrJim

12th August 2007, 02:57 PM

The big deal right now is homosexuality, but once that has settled down the extremists in these denominations will find something else to dredge up and shove down people's throats...and make no mistake about it, liberals are much more effective at pushing their beliefs on others than we will ever be despite that being a common criticism.

biblical criticism, abortion, homosexuality, what's next on the agenda?

MercyBurst

12th August 2007, 03:46 PM

Well I guess there's always the "love and tolerance" aspect of it...but is it worth getting up on Sunday morning for that? And I hear the universalist/unitarians are more fun anyhow;)

oh boy, you gotta be kidding.

My sister was unitarian "uno"

She bragged how her church took the best of all religions and put them all together into a smorgasboard, where you choose what you want.

I told her that Jesus IS the best on ALL RELIGIONS.

I also said it sounded like "itching ears" to me.

She used to brag about how tolerant they were, but she finally got tired of going to church with a bunch of unrepentent gays and lesbians.

Her pastor presided over her wedding where he prayed to "father-mother god." After the wedding he got kind of irked when some of us got a little old time religion in us and began singing "showers of blessings."

With a smirk on his face, he came over to tell us that nobody needed mercy drops falling around them. That would mean we're sinners you see.

My wife thought he was kind of a jerk.

Anyway, thank God my sister got out of that unitarian mess. I prayed for her everyday for almost 3 years. She's a born-again believer now. :holy:

MercyBurst

12th August 2007, 03:59 PM

ContentInHim

12th August 2007, 04:46 PM

biblical criticism, abortion, homosexuality, what's next on the agenda?
Saving the planet (global warming, overpopulation, fossil fuels, California redwoods and the stupid spotted owl). :D

ContentInHim

12th August 2007, 04:47 PM

In deed. I know a conservative epispocal that is exactly what you've described. He helped pay for his local church. He has attended it for at least 25 years.

He is so disaffected over the church split. He says that new woman head bishop, Katherine Schori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Jefferts_Schori), is about the worst thing that ever happened to their denomination.

He watches this episcopal tragedy unfold in disbelief as it goes after PC instead of JC.

By the way, have you heard about the breakaway parishes in Virginia and Florida that are going with the Nigerian Anglican Council? In Virginia they're sueing over who owns the church buildings.
Yep and pray for them because there is no way they could afford to purchase their buildings. Fortunately I think it's in Texas the courts sided with the parishioners.

otoh, this adversity is just making them stronger in their faith even if poorer in their pocketbook. :thumbsup:

MercyBurst

12th August 2007, 07:50 PM

Saving the planet (global warming, overpopulation, fossil fuels, California redwoods and the stupid spotted owl). :D

oh I get it -- save the whales, but abort the babies!

Yes indeed, I know the type. So now that is their church ministry is it? :doh:

Check out this little clip form the Tucker Carlson editorial link I posted in the OP. It's about his visit to an episcopal divinity school:

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Epis/Crisis.htm

The moral, of course, is that there is a huge market among Episcopalians for trendy packaged as religion. In the mailroom at the Episcopal Divinity School, the most liberal of the church's 11 seminaries, the "Support Groups/Counselling bulletin board is crammed with notices advertising every conceivable variety of navel-gazing: a weekend retreat for lesbian couples, tarot-card instruction, yoga classes, a ceremony led by a local "artist, mask maker, ritualist and performer" to celebrate "rhythms in nature," as well as the by-now familiar classes in "stress management and wellness." An ad for one workshop, placed next to a "Planned Parenthood Needs Volunteers" flyer, offers advice for "coping, managing and thriving when a spouse has Adult Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Adult Attention Deficiency Hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)." For those who pay attention too carefully, there are also "Anger Management Groups" designed to help participants "get a handle on temper and other feelings."

If all this sounds like the product of a collective mid-life crisis, it shouldn't be surprising. The average Episcopal seminarian these days is close to mid-life, with the majority entering divinity school past the age of 35. For many, going to seminary is merely another form of self- discovery, often undertaken after a divorce. "I'm looking at the Hebrew Bible in terms of self esteem," says one middle-aged student at the Episcopal Divinity School, by way of explaining what she has been doing for the past two years.

I feel like laughing and crying at the same time.

ContentInHim

12th August 2007, 08:05 PM

oh I get it -- save the whales, but abort the babies!

Yes indeed, I know the type. So now that is their church ministry is it? :doh:

Check out this little clip form the Tucker Carlson editorial link I posted in the OP. It's about his visit to an episcopal divinity school:

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/32Ang/Epis/Crisis.htm

I feel like laughing and crying at the same time.
This is how that horrible Sciori entered the priesthood - midlife crisis, priest for 6 years in Las Vegas and now she runs TEC in the USA? How on earth was she qualified except that she said there are many ways to God. Well, maybe there are but the only documented way is through his Son! She is an abomination. God bless all those in TEC who are separating on the moral issues.

I like Tucker. He's got a brain and he's less argumentative than O'Reilly!

zoziw

12th August 2007, 08:41 PM

biblical criticism, abortion, homosexuality, what's next on the agenda?

It could be anything, twenty years ago...or even ten, I wouldn't have guessed that they would be marrying gay couples.

struggling89

12th August 2007, 08:42 PM

on the scale of liberal--conservative christianity, i tend to be a moderate. usually i find myself agreeing far more with the liberals than the conservatives, but you guys definitely have a point here. although on a ton of core issues i side with the liberals (evolution, non-christians going to heaven, politics, the role of women in the church etc. etc.) i think in many more liberal churches a the idea of a personal relationship has been forgotten. one person with whom i can really identify on this is brian mclaren of the emergent church movement (which i know leans way too far to the left for most conservatives). i'm an ex-catholic myself and have been searching for a new church for a good 8-9 months now; i was drawn to methodism. i'm a little bit hesitant in joining the UMC for some of the aforementioned reasons. in the end, it's the church i'll join because there just really isn't another great fit for me. so not looking to start any arguments really, just stating my feelings more or less.

Ishida

12th August 2007, 10:18 PM

So, do you think they are worse off then those who do not know Jesus?

zoziw

13th August 2007, 12:56 AM

So, do you think they are worse off then those who do not know Jesus?

But what Jesus do they know? If the Jesus they know is just a man or a metaphor, he isn't the Jesus that can save them.

I can say that I believe in Jesus, but if by that I mean the drunken janitor at the school I used to attend then that isn't really going to help me.

Many liberals deny Jesus' divinity, some even deny the resurrection, that isn't the Jesus of the Bible and it isn't the Jesus that can save them.

ContentInHim

13th August 2007, 08:47 AM

So, do you think they are worse off then those who do not know Jesus?
Yes, because they should know better but chose not to. And they lead others who are sincerely searching astray. :(

SingingElk

13th August 2007, 09:12 AM

But what Jesus do they know? If the Jesus they know is just a man or a metaphor, he isn't the Jesus that can save them.

I can say that I believe in Jesus, but if by that I mean the drunken janitor at the school I used to attend then that isn't really going to help me.

Many liberals deny Jesus' divinity, some even deny the resurrection, that isn't the Jesus of the Bible and it isn't the Jesus that can save them.
So essentially they are not saved. They have bought into something that is worthless. A Jesus that is not God in the flesh is not Jesus at all.

MercyBurst

13th August 2007, 04:06 PM

MrJim

13th August 2007, 04:11 PM

so back to the discourse on disaffected conservative christians in the liberal denominations.

Is anyone reaching out to these people that want to leave?

Is there a strategy in place to minister to these people who are surely discouraged?

hey, we'll take them at our church. We'll even change our program to make them feel more at home.

Seems most denoms suffering from this (I'm in an American Baptist church, it has its problems) has some conservative parachurch group working the sidelines. It's like that with the ABC, it was like that when I was in the Mennonite church, I know there's a group working the Brethren-in-Christ & Church of the Brethren denoms.

But generally I think it is more generally an attitude of the libs that, "Hey, we are more spiritual and know what God wants, get on board or find another group" mentality, though it may not come out exactly in those words.

MercyBurst

13th August 2007, 09:49 PM

From my Pastor:

A disgusted friend sent this today. It backs what we were agreeing about yesterday.

Reuters --

Lutherans to allow pastors in gay relationships

Homosexual Lutheran clergy who are in sexual relationships will be able to serve as pastors, the largest U.S. Lutheran body said on Saturday.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) passed a resolution at its annual assembly urging bishops to refrain from disciplining pastors who are in "faithful committed same-gender relationships."

The resolution passed by a vote of 538-431.

"The Church . . . has just said 'Do not do punishments'," said Phil Soucy, spokesman for Lutherans Concerned, a gay-lesbian rights group within the church. "That is huge."

The ELCA, which has 4.8 million members, had previously allowed gays to serve as pastors so long as they abstained from sexual relations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070811/us_nm/religion_lutherans_dc;_ylt=AoqX7OZ

The conference also instructed a committee that is developing a social statement on sexuality to further investigate the issue. The committee is scheduled to release its report in 2009.
Since the ELCA was founded in 1988, the group has ordered three pastors in gay relationships to be removed from their ministries. The most recent case was decided in July when the ELCA's committee on appeals voted to remove an openly gay pastor from St. John's Lutheran Church in Atlanta.

The gay clergy issue has become a flashpoint in other faiths, including the Anglican Church.

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 02:03 AM

Excellent Post! Very well said! :thumbsup:

No one has weighed in on your post so far. I am still fairly new to this website so I don't know what the rules are about controversial postings such as this.

The church as a whole is suffering from the blight of permissiveness. Every mainstream denomination has its conservatives-those people that support the sanctity of life and the biblical definition of family.

Much of the problem is due to the sin nature of mankind. People want to do what is convenient instead of following God's law. The problem is more prevalent in some denominations, leading to stagnation and even regression. The leadership doesn't help matters any when they endorse sin.

When they go redefining the nature of God from Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is usually how this slippery slope begins. Sometimes it starts with permitting sin. Both are bedfellows. If you find one, you'll find the other.

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 02:09 AM

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 02:16 AM

Glory to God MB! :clap::clap::clap:

oh boy, you gotta be kidding.

My sister was unitarian "uno"

She bragged how her church took the best of all religions and put them all together into a smorgasboard, where you choose what you want.

I told her that Jesus IS the best on ALL RELIGIONS.

I also said it sounded like "itching ears" to me.

She used to brag about how tolerant they were, but she finally got tired of going to church with a bunch of unrepentent gays and lesbians.

Her pastor presided over her wedding where he prayed to "father-mother god." After the wedding he got kind of irked when some of us got a little old time religion in us and began singing "showers of blessings."

With a smirk on his face, he came over to tell us that nobody needed mercy drops falling around them. That would mean we're sinners you see.

My wife thought he was kind of a jerk.

Anyway, thank God my sister got out of that unitarian mess. I prayed for her everyday for almost 3 years. She's a born-again believer now. :holy:

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 02:27 AM

More evidence that Jesus is coming soon! :clap:
The Word says that judgment is going to come to the house of the Lord FIRST.
These are some very evident reasons why that is!

From my Pastor:

A disgusted friend sent this today. It backs what we were agreeing about yesterday.

Reuters --

Lutherans to allow pastors in gay relationships

Homosexual Lutheran clergy who are in sexual relationships will be able to serve as pastors, the largest U.S. Lutheran body said on Saturday.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) passed a resolution at its annual assembly urging bishops to refrain from disciplining pastors who are in "faithful committed same-gender relationships."

The resolution passed by a vote of 538-431.

"The Church . . . has just said 'Do not do punishments'," said Phil Soucy, spokesman for Lutherans Concerned, a gay-lesbian rights group within the church. "That is huge."

The ELCA, which has 4.8 million members, had previously allowed gays to serve as pastors so long as they abstained from sexual relations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070811/us_nm/religion_lutherans_dc;_ylt=AoqX7OZ

The conference also instructed a committee that is developing a social statement on sexuality to further investigate the issue. The committee is scheduled to release its report in 2009.
Since the ELCA was founded in 1988, the group has ordered three pastors in gay relationships to be removed from their ministries. The most recent case was decided in July when the ELCA's committee on appeals voted to remove an openly gay pastor from St. John's Lutheran Church in Atlanta.

The gay clergy issue has become a flashpoint in other faiths, including the Anglican Church.

NewGuy101

14th August 2007, 02:35 AM

Eh...the church has been saying that Christ will return in their age for 2000 years. Time to stop speculating and trust in him and follow his Word.

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 02:45 AM

Do you not study the times we are in with the Scriptures?
Do you not recognize the time nor the season?

Eh...the church has been saying that Christ will return in their age for 2000 years. Time to stop speculating and trust in him and follow his Word.

NewGuy101

14th August 2007, 02:53 AM

Do you not study the times we are in with the Scriptures?
Do you not recognize the time nor the season?

I do study the end times that's why I know. If you look through church history you would know that almost every single generation claims to be the last. Why do we do this to ourselves? The scripture itself says that Christ will come like a thief in the night.

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 02:56 AM

NewGuy101

14th August 2007, 03:04 AM

Yes, they did, but if you are studying it then you should also know that we are the only generation that meets ALL of the qualifications that Jesus said MUST come to pass first, and not just some. :thumbsup:

PS... He will only come as a thief in the night to those who are not watching and waiting
expectantly for the Master's return.

Again, every generation states that. Many state that the apostles themselves thought that they would see Christs return.

Guess what...it didn't happen.

To me it seems that the concept of the theif of the night states to be ready all the time for Christs return and obvidient.

1 The Chapter 5:
5:1 Now on the topic of times and seasons, 1 brothers and sisters, 2 you have no need for anything to be written to you. 5:2 For you know quite well that the day of the Lord 3 will come in the same way as a thief in the night. 4 5:3 Now when 5 they are saying, “There is peace and security,” 6 then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains 7 on a pregnant woman, and they will surely not escape. 5:4 But you, brothers and sisters, 8 are not in the darkness for the day to overtake you like a thief would. 5:5 For you all are sons of the light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of the darkness. 5:6 So then we must not sleep as the rest, but must stay alert and sober. 5:7 For those who sleep, sleep at night and those who get drunk are drunk at night. 5:8 But since we are of the day, we must stay sober by putting on the breastplate 9 of faith and love and as a helmet our hope for salvation. 10 5:9 For God did not destine us for wrath 11 but for gaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. 5:10 He died 12 for us so that whether we are alert or asleep 13 we will come to life together with him. 5:11 Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, just as you are in fact doing.

BTW the next generation will meet ther requirements as well...unless your speaking of something I don't know of. Although eschotology is important we shouldn't enphesize it so much.

MercyBurst

14th August 2007, 06:23 AM

More evidence that Jesus is coming soon! :clap:
The Word says that judgment is going to come to the house of the Lord FIRST.
These are some very evident reasons why that is!

Yes, that has been speculated since the re-creation of the nation of Israel. "There will first be a falling away". Pastors tell me that christians are dying in service like they have never dyed before in the history of the church.

Other signs are the emergence of China "kingdom in the east", the EU "horns on the head", the alignment of all arab nations including specifically Libya, Ethiopia, Persia (Iraq and Iran). The imposing pressence of a northern empire which now comprises eastern and western components of the old Soviet Union. There are several more.

I'm not trying to be fanatical -- rather I look at the world evidence vis-a-vis the scripture prophesy.

Albion

14th August 2007, 09:17 AM

Simon_Templar

14th August 2007, 10:55 AM

I do study the end times that's why I know. If you look through church history you would know that almost every single generation claims to be the last. Why do we do this to ourselves? The scripture itself says that Christ will come like a thief in the night.
Perhaps we do this to ourselves because God intends that we all desire to be the generation that sees Him appear. People always use this excuse not to be excited about the return of Christ... I think quite the contrary that every generation SHOULD expect him, and should be excitedly waiting for his appearing.

Also a point of common misinterpetation. The bible says that Jesus is coming like a theif in the night, to the unsaved. Paul specifically says t hat he should NOT come like a theif in the night to we who beleive, for we are not in darkness.
If Jesus is coming like a theif in the night to a person, it means they are in darkness and are asleep.

Simon_Templar

14th August 2007, 11:02 AM

I am not sure about all Orthodox, but it is my understanding that in Catholicism they become members of the church at their christening which is usually done within the first 6 months from birth. Many, not all, but many Catholics cannot tell you when they first repented and asked Jesus into their lives. They believe they have always been Christians "since they were babies" and were saved at their christening (infant baptism). Many believe that being "born again" is denominational and do not realize it is a requirement.
Granted that many Catholics and Orthodox are poorly taught regarding personal faith, and being born again etc.

However, the belief of both Catholic and Orthodox is that being born again occurs in baptism. This is the historic teaching of the church going back as far as there are written records and there is significant support for it in scripture as well.

Confirmation/Chrismation is the laying on of hands to impart the Holy Spirit and seal the person as a member of the church.

It is a sad truth that baptism and confirmation have become nominal affairs for many who's faith is nominal. Yet they are biblical practices and were the practice of the entire church until the reformation. Most of the moden evangelical/protestant ideas on these things are even more recent than than the reformation as most of the major reformation leaders had more traditional views on at least baptism.

Albion

14th August 2007, 12:42 PM

Granted that many Catholics and Orthodox are poorly taught regarding personal faith, and being born again etc.

However, the belief of both Catholic and Orthodox is that being born again occurs in baptism. This is the historic teaching of the church going back as far as there are written records and there is significant support for it in scripture as well.

Actually, even that is not quite correct. No one contends that if baptised as an infant--and assuming that this forgives sin and imparts the HS--that this person is saved without ever having to make a personal commitment to the Lord later in life.

Well, no one but a Unitarian Universalist.

NewGuy101

14th August 2007, 01:49 PM

Perhaps we do this to ourselves because God intends that we all desire to be the generation that sees Him appear. People always use this excuse not to be excited about the return of Christ... I think quite the contrary that every generation SHOULD expect him, and should be excitedly waiting for his appearing.

Also a point of common misinterpetation. The bible says that Jesus is coming like a theif in the night, to the unsaved. Paul specifically says t hat he should NOT come like a theif in the night to we who beleive, for we are not in darkness.
If Jesus is coming like a theif in the night to a person, it means they are in darkness and are asleep.
I think we should trust God and know that he will come in his own time not ours. That just bad logic...

"everyone should just be excited because I said so.."

And if it is a bad hermanutic in my part please demonstrate how it is...

Simon_Templar

14th August 2007, 02:18 PM

I think we should trust God and know that he will come in his own time not ours. That just bad logic...

"everyone should just be excited because I said so.."

And if it is a bad hermanutic in my part please demonstrate how it is...
My point was that I think the reason every generation has thought they were the generation to see the Lord, and been excited about his return, is because that is what the bible teaches us.

The bible says that the Lord returns to those who love his appearing. It says that his return is the blessed hope. There appears to be some evidence in scripture that the apostles expected the Lord to return in their life time, but there is also evidence that they knew he might not.
I think the point is that it is right for us to hope that he does. I think there is something wrong with people who don't care about the return of the Lord, or they treat it like, 'eh, it'll happen sometime, but probably not for a long time'. These people are becoming like the servants in the parable who's master delayed in a foreign country. They began to think "he's been away so long, he isn't coming back anytime soon, if at all"

People shouldn't be excited because I said so. They should be anxiously hopefully awaiting the return because that is what the bible teaches us to do.

Simon_Templar

14th August 2007, 02:20 PM

Actually, even that is not quite correct. No one contends that if baptised as an infant--and assuming that this forgives sin and imparts the HS--that this person is saved without ever having to make a personal commitment to the Lord later in life.

Well, no one but a Unitarian Universalist.
well baptism and confirmation aren't magic rituals that work no matter what. They are useless without faith, no one disputes that.

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 03:23 PM

Amen. :thumbsup:

Perhaps we do this to ourselves because God intends that we all desire to be the generation that sees Him appear. People always use this excuse not to be excited about the return of Christ... I think quite the contrary that every generation SHOULD expect him, and should be excitedly waiting for his appearing.

Also a point of common misinterpetation. The bible says that Jesus is coming like a theif in the night, to the unsaved. Paul specifically says t hat he should NOT come like a theif in the night to we who beleive, for we are not in darkness.
If Jesus is coming like a theif in the night to a person, it means they are in darkness and are asleep.

My point was that I think the reason every generation has thought they were the generation to see the Lord, and been excited about his return, is because that is what the bible teaches us.

The bible says that the Lord returns to those who love his appearing. It says that his return is the blessed hope. There appears to be some evidence in scripture that the apostles expected the Lord to return in their life time, but there is also evidence that they knew he might not.
I think the point is that it is right for us to hope that he does. I think there is something wrong with people who don't care about the return of the Lord, or they treat it like, 'eh, it'll happen sometime, but probably not for a long time'. These people are becoming like the servants in the parable who's master delayed in a foreign country. They began to think "he's been away so long, he isn't coming back anytime soon, if at all"

People shouldn't be excited because I said so. They should be anxiously hopefully awaiting the return because that is what the bible teaches us to do.

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 03:28 PM

Sadly that is not the case. I wish it was true, but there are many
many people that think they have been saved since their infant baptism.

Actually, even that is not quite correct. No one contends that if baptised as an infant--and assuming that this forgives sin and imparts the HS--that this person is saved without ever having to make a personal commitment to the Lord later in life.

Well, no one but a Unitarian Universalist.

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 03:35 PM

That is a bad interpretation of what has been said. When I began studying Prophecy, you were eleven years old.

There is much to study! Not to mention, you have to alongside it, study history as well as current events.
and you must LISTEN to what the Holy Spirit is saying. The Word says He will share secrets with you, when you enter in to the secret place. He will tell you of things to come. Do you believe this?

That was for your spirit, now for a nugget for your thoughts to ponder:

No other nation, if they were doing all three, could make the claims that we can today and be remotely correct. There are tons of reasons why, but the most obvious three reasons are that a) Israel was not even a nation until 1948. Secondly, the explosion of knowledge had not even occurred. We were on horseback less than a hundred years ago. Since then we have been to the Moon etc. Thirdly, we can see all nations via satellite through our TVs. Which was NEVER possible before. (the only way the two witnesses laying dead in the street could be seen by the whole world)
Don't be so narrow in your thoughts.
That kind if narrow mindedness is the enemy of wisdom and knowledge.

Sorry to have derailed this thread!!

I think we should trust God and know that he will come in his own time not ours. That just bad logic...

"everyone should just be excited because I said so.."

And if it is a bad hermanutic in my part please demonstrate how it is...

NewGuy101

14th August 2007, 03:53 PM

That is a bad interpretation of what has been said. When I began studying Prophecy, you were eleven years old.

There is much to study! Not to mention, you have to alongside it, study history as well as current events.
and you must LISTEN to what the Holy Spirit is saying. The Word says He will share secrets with you, when you enter in to the secret place. He will tell you of things to come. Do you believe this?

That was for your spirit, now for a nugget for your thoughts to ponder:

No other nation, if they were doing all three, could make the claims that we can today and be remotely correct. There are tons of reasons why, but the most obvious three reasons are that a) Israel was not even a nation until 1948. Secondly, the explosion of knowledge had not even occurred. We were on horseback less than a hundred years ago. Since then we have been to the Moon etc. Thirdly, we can see all nations via satellite through our TVs. Which was NEVER possible before. (the only way the two witnesses laying dead in the street could be seen by the whole world)
Don't be so narrow in your thoughts.
That kind if narrow mindedness is the enemy of wisdom and knowledge.

Sorry to have derailed this thread!!
Iamredeemed, I have great respect for you, but your assumptions don't make it reality. The only being that knows the return of Christ, is God himself.

My biggest concern is spreading the Gosple, not making wild guesses about the Lords return. No ammount of studying in your part is going to change that.

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 04:46 PM

Actually NewGuy, if you had great respect for me, you would have read what I said, instead of posting your next thought hastily, without actually "hearing" what I have said. (and that is giving you the benefit of the doubt) Chalking what I shared with you up as my "assumptions" is very presumptious of you and with all sincerity I have to urge you to be very careful at this point, as you are starting to enter an area of danger with your haughty stance regarding it.

Please not not reply, as there is no reply necessary. You have made your stance on this topic abundantly clear. It could only grow worse if you choose to speak again on the same line of thought. What your next step should be is to prayerfully talk it over with the Lord. You don't want to put yourself in the position of possibly blaspheming the Holy Ghost, chalking what is owed to Him, up to another source, such as "my assumptions."

Iamredeemed, I have great respect for you, but your assumptions don't make it reality. The only being that knows the return of Christ, is God himself.

My biggest concern is spreading the Gosple, not making wild guesses about the Lords return. No ammount of studying in your part is going to change that.

Albion

14th August 2007, 05:02 PM

Maybe if he'd said that your personal interpretation of scripture is not necessarily the only one?

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 05:14 PM

No, that wouldn't apply at all. The Scripture is only 1/4 of the equation. Apparently you did not read my posts very well.

Maybe if he'd said that your personal interpretation of scripture is not necessarily the only one?

Albion

14th August 2007, 05:18 PM

No, that wouldn't apply at all. The Scripture is only 1/4 of the equation. Apparently you did not read my posts very well.

Well, I'm just wondering why you want to come down on him so haughtily for a modest post that said something obvious---that your view of this matter is only your view.

There's no connection of course, but I'm reminded of the fellow on some forum who was incensed that we didn't all agree that he's a prophet; after all, he SAID that he was and proved it by telling us he'd been talking with the Holy Spirit. IOW, who were we to argue against the Holy Spirit!?

NewGuy101

14th August 2007, 05:26 PM

Actually NewGuy, if you had great respect for me, you would have read what I said, instead of posting your next thought hastily, without actually "hearing" what I have said. (and that is giving you the benefit of the doubt) Chalking what I shared with you up as my "assumptions" is very presumptious of you and with all sincerity I have to urge you to be very careful at this point, as you are starting to enter an area of danger with your haughty stance regarding it.

Please not not reply, as there is no reply necessary. You have made your stance on this topic abundantly clear. It could only grow worse if you choose to speak again on the same line of thought. What your next step should be is to prayerfully talk it over with the Lord. You don't want to put yourself in the position of possibly blaspheming the Holy Ghost, chalking what is owed to Him, up to another source, such as "my assumptions."

I'm really sorry you feel that way since I do have great respect for you. But eschatology theologically speaking is one of the more obscure areas of scripture. I hope that we can still speak since I do consider you a great friend and teacher.

NewGuy101

14th August 2007, 05:32 PM

No, that wouldn't apply at all. The Scripture is only 1/4 of the equation. Apparently you did not read my posts very well.
It really saddens me that you would get so defensive in such an unclear issue IamRedeemed. I really hope you reconsider and stick more with the essentials like I chose to do.

MrJim

14th August 2007, 06:51 PM

eschatology derailment ahead :D

I tend to be amillenial; hope that ain't too namby-pamby^_^

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 06:57 PM

:wave: No, it isn't "ahead" rest at ease. Check back a couple of posts where you will see I apologized for having derailed the thread (not knowing I would be slapped on the side of the head by someone who apparently has a particular axe to grind, for the comment I made to one of your posts.) I should not have responded to it but I did and therefore derailed the thread and did apologize, so again it is not ahead (as far as I am concerned), but behind).

Meanwhile, back to the topic The Church of the Mamby Pamby.... carry on........ :thumbsup:

eschatology derailment ahead :D

I tend to be amillenial; hope that ain't too namby-pamby^_^

MrJim

14th August 2007, 06:59 PM

:wave: No, it isn't "ahead" rest at ease. Check back a couple of posts where you will see I apologized for having derailed the thread (not knowing I would be slapped on the side of the head by someone who apparently has a particular axe to grind, for the comment I made to one of your posts.) I should not have responded to it but I did and therefore derailed the thread and did apologize, so again it is not ahead (as far as I am concerned), but behind).

Meanwhile, back to the topic The Church of the Mamby Pamby.... carry on........ :thumbsup:

Hey, I don't believe in derails~a conversation goes where it goes;)

MercyBurst

14th August 2007, 08:18 PM

Speaking of Namby-Pamby forums, I just came back from my latest flambe over at the ethics and morality forum down there in the cellar section of the CF. Stay clear of that place!!! ick.

I collected just a small sampling of it -- oohh does it stink -- and little bit of stink goes a long way. I made a summary of the results so you won't have to wade through all the sewage and dementia that came with it. So I gleaned a few floaters:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37622986&postcount=1

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 11:37 PM

I don't feel that I am being "defensive", however I am a little irritated at how dogmatic you are being about a topic you admittedly do not know much about. And how it is that you think because you don't that no one else does. I am also concerned about how dogmatic you are being as I believe you are treading very close to dangerous territory dismissing the things of God that you by your own admission that you are currently are unlearned in and therefore believe that everyone is in the same boat as you, and chalking anything shared with up to "their assumptions".

I asked you earlier but you ignored the question...the Word says that if we meet with the Holy Spirit in the secret place, He will reveal secrets to us, and tell us of things to come. Do you believe this? Please answer this time.

God wants to share His secrets with us. But He also wants us to search Him and seek Him for wisdom and knowledge. It is not His will that we are ignorant, but in His Word are many hidden treasures. That is why many times in Revelation you will see, "let those who have an ear, hear what the Spirit of the Lord is saying unto the Churches." God wants us to incline our ears. To seek Him out. To meet with Him in the secret place.

It never rained from the sky before the flood in Genesis. No one believed Noah. He took over 100 years to build that Ark. They thought he was a nut. He wasn't a nut, but He was a fool for God.

The Word does not say we would be ignorant to the time and the season. The Word does say we would not know the day nor the hour. But it also says we would know by the signs, the time and the season of His being near at the doors. I cannot share with you what I have studied in 11 years in a couple of posts. Nor am I inclined to even attempt it. But I would be happy to share enough that would cause you to seek the Lord about it for yourself.

Jesus even said to the Sadduccees I believe it was, how ironic it was, they being scholars of the Word, and of Prophecy, not even knowing what time it was. (paraphrase of course) He was basically telling them that they should have known it was Him, that the day of their visitation was at hand.

~selah (which means, think on these things)

It really saddens me that you would get so defensive in such an unclear issue IamRedeemed. I really hope you reconsider and stick more with the essentials like I chose to do.

IamRedeemed

14th August 2007, 11:41 PM

"A little bit of stink goes a long way" ROFL!!!

http://pichostonline.com/u/070815/ad8fddb3bd.jpg

Speaking of Namby-Pamby forums, I just came back from my latest flambe over at the ethics and morality forum down there in the cellar section of the CF. Stay clear of that place!!! ick.

I collected just a small sampling of it -- oohh does it stink -- and little bit of stink goes a long way. I made a summary of the results so you won't have to wade through all the sewage and dementia that came with it. So I gleaned a few floaters:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37622986&postcount=1

eastcoast_bsc

15th August 2007, 12:03 AM

IamRedeemed

15th August 2007, 12:46 AM

If you are making a reference to me ESC, let me make it clear to you and any one else who comes in sideways and makes a slant, or intends to that I am not, nor do I claim to be a Prophet. A diligent seeker of the Word and a diligent student of Biblical Prophecy does not make one a prophet. Perhaps if you spent more time in the presence of the Lord and more time studying His Word and less time defending sexual deviation and perversion, I wouldn't have to explain this to you.

MercyBurst

15th August 2007, 11:19 AM

If it is so ick as you say, why do you frequent those forums on a daily basis ? You should be over here arguing over who or who isn't a Prophet.

troll alert. troll alert

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/111/0/e/Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg

He's a floater. Smack him good moderators. teee heee teee heee.

NewGuy101

15th August 2007, 11:43 AM

I asked you earlier but you ignored the question...the Word says that if we meet with the Holy Spirit in the secret place, He will reveal secrets to us, and tell us of things to come. Do you believe this? Please answer this time

Iamreedemed, I find your post ironic considering you fail to see all the different eschotological views. I would really like for you to quote where exactly I said I didn't know anything about the subject.

And yes God wants to reveal his secrete to us, BUT WHICH ONES? And TO WHOM? WE (by we I mean everyone) don't know how everything is going to play out that doesn't imply I don't know all the views.

May God humble you and open your eyes...I know in my theological training I have learned to stick to what is more clear in scripture and making DOGMA which is what you have accused me of.

NewGuy101

15th August 2007, 11:44 AM

troll alert. troll alert

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/300W/images3.deviantart.com/i/2004/111/0/e/Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg

He's a floater. Smack him good moderators. teee heee teee heee.
Can't do anything about it yet since I don't have a trainer. :doh:

SingingElk

15th August 2007, 11:50 AM

MercyBurst

15th August 2007, 12:27 PM

Can't do anything about it yet since I don't have a trainer. :doh:

Still got your training wheels. Soon you'll have fun flushing the big floaters. Before long you'll be an ace pilot. ;)

MercyBurst

15th August 2007, 12:31 PM

I just read that link.:sick: I don't know how to say it. Mercyburst, You are absolutely correct. I'll come right out and say it. Christianity and the homosexual lifestyle just cannot coexist. This is one of the things you address in your first post. The Church becomes Namby Pamby when it tries to embrace the lifestyle.

Yeah, I went through that place with my waders on. You wouldn't believe the pain and suffering I endured as I asked "just asked" my simple question over and over just as cordially as a person can do. I was so kind to them. I didn't want to debate anyone. I just wanted to hear them put their best position forward.

But they couldn't answer, you see. They could not answer for themselves. That's why I had to keep asking over and over and over as the flames rose higher and higher.

And you are right -- it's enough to turn a person's stomach. :sick:

MercyBurst

15th August 2007, 01:09 PM

By the way Singing Elk,

The only '"real" excuse they came up with was that a "devout christian" told them it wasn't sin.

synger

15th August 2007, 03:52 PM

Sadly that is not the case. I wish it was true, but there are many
many people that think they have been saved since their infant baptism.

And for another way of looking at it...

I was saved WAY before baptism, when Christ died for my sins and rose again to break the chains of sin and death. God's gave me faith, through His Word, in baptism first, and later through preaching. When I was older, I confirmed that faith (confirmation). I also had the option to reject that faith. There was no "decision" I could make on my own. I was lost in my sins, unable to understand or even reach out for the gift of faith that God offered. But in His grace, He gave it to me. And I am grateful every day for that gracious gift.

SingingElk

15th August 2007, 06:43 PM

I mentioned in a earlier post that rejection of the biblical definition of God and the acceptance of sin are bedfellows. When you do not worship the biblical God you are worshiping something other than God. The consequences of worshiping anything other than the true God are the giving over to sin, even sin that reaps terrible consequences.

Romans 1: 26 , 27 and 28

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Let's face it. Homosexuality is a self destructive behavior, contrary to what the politically correct try to tell us. They try to say that it is OK to be Gay and that it is a healthy lifestyle. Wrap an onion in Christmas paper and it is still an onion.

IamRedeemed

15th August 2007, 09:15 PM

Let's see...you were saved three years ago, and I have been saved for over 30 and have been studying Prophecy for 11 years, and I should humble myself, because there's nothing that you could learn from me? (not that there aren't areas I could humble myself, as I am sure all of us can say at some time or another) But what exactly would be your specific definition of me humbling myself in this area? That I should say that I don't know anything? That you are right? That all of the time I have spent with the Lord and in His Word, and all I have studied and the wisdom and knowledge that He is expanded within me is all a farce? That I have deceived myself into believing I was having a relationship with the Lord, and hearing from Him when all the while it was just my amazing self and my own assumptions? Well, sorry...no can do. I think until you have grown in the things of the Lord and come to a place in maturity in your walk with Christ and you enter into the secret place where the Holy Spirit imparts knowledge within you, that you know that you know that you know, you are in no position to tell anyone what they do or do not know. And you should humble yourself and not scoff or speak down (condescending), mocking and brushing aside someone who shares something they know, or brush aside what they share just because you personally do not know. It is all there to be found, right in the Word. The Holy Spirit gives you eyes to see it with. We are also so fortunate to be living in this time, as we have the benefit of 20/20 vision that our forefathers did not.

And in answer to which ones and to whom, the answer is very simple. God is no respecter of persons. Any that seek Him diligently. Again it is not His will that we would be ignorant. Those who have an ear to hear, will hear.

Iamreedemed, I find your post ironic considering you fail to see all the different eschotological views. I would really like for you to quote where exactly I said I didn't know anything about the subject.

And yes God wants to reveal his secrete to us, BUT WHICH ONES? And TO WHOM? WE (by we I mean everyone) don't know how everything is going to play out that doesn't imply I don't know all the views.

May God humble you and open your eyes...I know in my theological training I have learned to stick to what is more clear in scripture and making DOGMA which is what you have accused me of.

IamRedeemed

15th August 2007, 09:22 PM

Unfortunately, I can't see the point you are trying to make, as your reply has
nothing to do with my post or the point I was making as far as I can tell.......:scratch:

And for another way of looking at it...

I was saved WAY before baptism, when Christ died for my sins and rose again to break the chains of sin and death. God's gave me faith, through His Word, in baptism first, and later through preaching. When I was older, I confirmed that faith (confirmation). I also had the option to reject that faith. There was no "decision" I could make on my own. I was lost in my sins, unable to understand or even reach out for the gift of faith that God offered. But in His grace, He gave it to me. And I am grateful every day for that gracious gift.

Originally Posted by IamRedeemed http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37690183#post37690183)
Sadly that is not the case. I wish it was true, but there are many
many people that think they have been saved since their infant baptism.

Tangeloper

16th August 2007, 08:41 AM

Unfortunately, I can't see the point you are trying to make, as your reply has
nothing to do with my post or the point I was making as far as I can tell.......:scratch:

Originally Posted by IamRedeemed http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=37690183#post37690183)
Sadly that is not the case. I wish it was true, but there are many
many people that think they have been saved since their infant baptism.
Actually, I understand what NewGuy is trying to say, and I think you are going a bit beyond the rules of the forum when you propose things such as people not being saved at infant baptism, and confirmation -- as this is Catholic tradition and belief to NOT require a "born-again" experience such as I think you are saying is necessary to be "saved".

Also, the rules further state that we are not to demand others accept our views especially in regards to Eschatological views. In reading the discussion between you and NewGuy on this thread, I interpret some of what you have said as trying to force him to accept your views on prophecy and such. If I understand the rules of the forum correctly this is not the place to debate these issues as they only serve to divide us. Rather, this particular subject, IMHO, would be better hashed out in the debate sub-forum as I can see this is getting rather heated.

And no, I'm not a moderator, just a fellow member hoping to keep things civilized within CC, and who is slightly offended by the tone you are taking in your posts...

I know if I were still a Catholic I would find your dismissal of infant baptism and confirmation particularly insulting to my beliefs as taught by the Catholic Church! Even as a former Catholic, and most recently a member of the Lutheran Church (LCMS) I still find it rather offensive that you seemingly dismiss infant baptism and confirmation out-of-hand.

If I am not mistaken you are pushing a Fundamentalist viewpoint that is not shared by all Conservative Christians and within the rules it states you must be careful not to do this because you are in essence attacking the beliefs of other Conservative Christians. This is not to say that Fundamentalists are not welcome to discuss, but we must all be respectful of each other's beliefs as long as they are not liberal beliefs... and even then we should still be respectful, but they do not need to be tolerated within the forum as per the rules...

If I've gotten any of this wrong, I invite a moderator to correct me, please...

IamRedeemed

16th August 2007, 09:22 AM

Dear Tangeloper,

First of all, the post you are responding to had nothing to do with any discussion with Newguy. My post was responded to by Synger, and the post you quoted of mine was in response to Synger.

Second of all, Jesus is the one that said we must be born again. So, if any are "offended" with that requirement, the problem is not with me, but with the Jesus Christ of the Bible, and any that are offended need to esteem the words of Jesus higher than their churches, if there be an opposing doctrine no matter what denomination they claim. Infants cannot choose Christ. (there is nothing wrong with parents dedicating their children to God, and having a ceremony, promising before God and the congregation that they will raise the child in the admonition of the Lord and assigning other people to take up that cause should anything happen to them, however this is not the same as choosing Christ and becoming born again.)

John 3:3-7Jesus answered and said unto him,"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

The Apostle Peter elaborates on the definition of being born again, here in 1 Peter 1:22-24

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower thereof falls away: but the Word of the Lord endures for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

God bless

Actually, I understand what NewGuy is trying to say, and I think you are going a bit beyond the rules of the forum when you propose things such as people not being saved at infant baptism, and confirmation -- as this is Catholic tradition and belief to NOT require a "born-again" experience such as I think you are saying is necessary to be "saved".

Also, the rules further state that we are not to demand others accept our views especially in regards to Eschatological views. In reading the discussion between you and NewGuy on this thread, I interpret some of what you have said as trying to force him to accept your views on prophecy and such. If I understand the rules of the forum correctly this is not the place to debate these issues as they only serve to divide us. Rather, this particular subject, IMHO, would be better hashed out in the debate sub-forum as I can see this is getting rather heated.

And no, I'm not a moderator, just a fellow member hoping to keep things civilized within CC, and who is slightly offended by the tone you are taking in your posts...

I know if I were still a Catholic I would find your dismissal of infant baptism and confirmation particularly insulting to my beliefs as taught by the Catholic Church! Even as a former Catholic, and most recently a member of the Lutheran Church (LCMS) I still find it rather offensive that you seemingly dismiss infant baptism and confirmation out-of-hand.

If I am not mistaken you are pushing a Fundamentalist viewpoint that is not shared by all Conservative Christians and within the rules it states you must be careful not to do this because you are in essence attacking the beliefs of other Conservative Christians. This is not to say that Fundamentalists are not welcome to discuss, but we must all be respectful of each other's beliefs as long as they are not liberal beliefs... and even then we should still be respectful, but they do not need to be tolerated within the forum as per the rules...

If I've gotten any of this wrong, I invite a moderator to correct me, please...

NewGuy101

16th August 2007, 09:23 AM

Let's see...you were saved three years ago, and I have been saved for over 30 and have been studying Prophecy for 11 years, and I should humble myself, because there's nothing that you could learn from me? (not that there aren't areas I could humble myself, as I am sure all of us can say at some time or another) But what exactly would be your specific definition of me humbling myself in this area? That I should say that I don't know anything? That you are right? That all of the time I have spent with the Lord and in His Word, and all I have studied and the wisdom and knowledge that He is expanded within me is all a farce? That I have deceived myself into believing I was having a relationship with the Lord, and hearing from Him when all the while it was just my amazing self and my own assumptions? Well, sorry...no can do. I think until you have grown in the things of the Lord and come to a place in maturity in your walk with Christ and you enter into the secret place where the Holy Spirit imparts knowledge within you, that you know that you know that you know, you are in no position to tell anyone what they do or do not know. And you should humble yourself and not scoff or speak down (condescending), mocking and brushing aside someone who shares something they know, or brush aside what they share just because you personally do not know. It is all there to be found, right in the Word. The Holy Spirit gives you eyes to see it with. We are also so fortunate to be living in this time, as we have the benefit of 20/20 vision that our forefathers did not.

And in answer to which ones and to whom, the answer is very simple. God is no respecter of persons. Any that seek Him diligently. Again it is not His will that we would be ignorant. Those who have an ear to hear, will hear.

I have never stated that I could never learn from you. You are taking what I said out of context...not once did I say that. I have stated that you should look at other views and not make yours the absolute.

The fact that you are misrepresenting me, really surprises me since we all went through that toghether in the homosexuality forum with the liberals. Please don't take what I said to heart but a way of opening your eyes. The fact that you boast (atleast that's how it seems) about how long you have been saved shocks me. Everyone here knows that time doesn't matter, but it's your commitment to the Lord. I will not post here my achievements or my success, I will just say that God has been very greaceful to me with biblical training.

synger

16th August 2007, 10:29 AM

I think we are not disagreeing with Jesus 'words that one must be born again, rather that we are disagreeing with your interpretation of what "born again" means.

It's like the term "fundamentalist" (as brought up in another thread). If I am asked if I'm a fundamentalist Christian, I would have to ask the person what they mean by that before I could answer them. I believe in The Fundamentals, but I am not what most people think of when they think of a fundamantalist Christian (which usually also includes a dispensational, Arminian bent to one's theology, in the popular mind)

The same with the term "born again." I have been born again, by water and the Word. I believe that every Christian, by definition, is a reborn person. It does not matter whether they were baptised as infants or as adults. The "rebirth" is from God, so their age at the time doesn't matter.

But the term "born again Christian" also includes the idea, in many people's minds, of having made a reasoned decision for Christ and asked Him into one's life. That, I disagree with (hence the infant baptism response). I believe that the Scriptures teach that God reaches out to us, not the other way around. And so I do not subscribe to Arminian soteriology or "decision-based" theology. That is, by and large, true of the vast majority of Christians through history and crossing huge swaths of tradition -- Orthodox, RC, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, many Methodist. The wide-spread idea of "believer's baptism" is a rather recent one, as Christian doctrines go.

Anyway, this is probably not the place for this discussion. I apologize for the derailment. If you wish to discourse further on how one gets saved, we should probably go to the Soteriology (http://www.christianforums.com/f83-soteriology.html)forum. And for discussion on various baptism doctrines, to the Sacramental (http://www.christianforums.com/f718-sacramental-ordinance-theology.html)forum.

Simon_Templar

16th August 2007, 10:30 AM

Second of all, Jesus is the one that said we must be born again. So, if any are "offended" with that requirement, the problem is not with me, but with the Jesus Christ of the Bible, and any that are offended need to esteem the words of Jesus higher than their churches, if there be an opposing doctrine no matter what denomination they claim. Infants cannot choose Christ. (there is nothing wrong with parents dedicating their children to God, and having a ceremony, promising before God and the congregation that they will raise the child in the admonition of the Lord and assigning other people to take up that cause should anything happen to them, however this is not the same as choosing Christ and becoming born again.)

John 3:3-7Jesus answered and said unto him,"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

The Apostle Peter elaborates on the definition of being born again, here in 1 Peter 1:22-24

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower thereof falls away: but the Word of the Lord endures for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

God bless

I think the point here is that you define "being born again" or how it occurs in a way that can not be exclusively proven from scripture.

For example, there is a great deal of evidence in scripture that being born again occurs in baptism. Which is what Catholics, Orthodox, many Lutherans, and Anglicans believe.

Further, the idea that an infant is incapable of faith, or knowing Jesus is entirely based on relatively modern philosophy. There is also evidence in scripture that infants can have relationship with God.

So the issue is not wether or not we believe a person must be born again. It is that your specific version of how a person is born again is not exclusively supported by scripture, and relies heavily on human philosophical perspectives which only came into popularity within the last few hundred years.

Tangeloper

16th August 2007, 10:35 AM

Dear Tangeloper,
First of all, the post you are responding to had nothing to do with any discussion with Newguy. My post was responded to by Synger, and the post you quoted of mine was in response to Synger.

Second of all, Jesus is the one that said we must be born again. So, if any are "offended" with that requirement, the problem is not with me, but with the Jesus Christ of the Bible, and any that are offended need to esteem the words of Jesus higher than their churches, if there be an opposing doctrine no matter what denomination they claim. Infants cannot choose Christ. (there is nothing wrong with parents dedicating their children to God, and having a ceremony, promising before God and the congregation that they will raise the child in the admonition of the Lord and assigning other people to take up that cause should anything happen to them, however this is not the same as choosing Christ and becoming born again.)

John 3:3-7Jesus answered and said unto him,"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

The Apostle Peter elaborates on the definition of being born again, here in 1 Peter 1:22-24

"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which lives and abides for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower thereof falls away: but the Word of the Lord endures for ever. And this is the Word which by the gospel is preached unto you."

God bless

First, my apologies, you are right of course, about whom you were discussing this with! Sorry to synger and NewGuy as well for the confusion! :blush: :sorry:

Secondly, I don't wish to debate with you over exactly what Jesus meant by being "born-again". As this is clearly an issue of doctrinal nature when it comes to what is taught in the Catholic & Lutheran churches (the only two I have personal knowledge of re: doctrine).

Your suggestion that anyone who is offended is offended by Jesus Himself, and not you who are putting forward this opinion within this thread, is exactly what I mean by holding your beliefs and interpretation of scripture over another's beliefs, interpretation of scripture, and church-taught doctrine. Particularly as this is not a Conservative/Liberal opinion in the most general sense. :doh:

I would suggest you make a thread in the debate sub-forum if you wish to discuss (or rather debate) this point further re: Baptism & Confirmation vs. being a "born-again" Christian.

I won't get into detailing my personal beliefs regarding this specific issue of doctrine/tradition/scripture, because it's not the proper place as I explained above.

Thanks & God Bless you as well,
Tangeloper

IamRedeemed

16th August 2007, 10:53 AM

Tangeloper

16th August 2007, 11:15 AM

Thank you for the suggestion, however, I do not wish to debate it. It isn't a topic that can be debated if one believes the Words of the Lord. If you want to attempt to debate it with some people, you may start a thread. I however, will not be there, as I choose to believe the Word of God, I have posted it, and that is all I can do. Arguing back and forth once the Word has been posted is fruitless.
The argument should cease once the Word is posted. The fact that it isn't is quite disconcerting, as the Words of Jesus are not confusing and to help, Peter clarifies it very well. See 2 Timothy 2:15.

PS. Your opinions do not remain hidden. The fact that you posted to butt heads with me on a comment
I made and continue to do so after the Word has been shown to you, makes where you stand illuminate.

God bless.

LOL, I must laugh as you are making assumptions about my personal beliefs and you do not know me at all!

One can hold personal beliefs that differ from doctrine they are intimately familiar with. I am merely making the point that discussion such as this is NOT permitted in this forum if I am understanding the rules correctly.

To simply quote Jesus' words and state that since you posted them all discussion and "debate" should end illuminates your belief in the supremacy of Sola Scriptura over Doctrines/Traditions of the Catholic and Lutheran Church (again, the 2 I am very familiar with).

Again, this is precisely what is prohibited by the Conservative Christian Forum Rules.

I am NOT debating whether you are correct in your views or not, I am merely attempting to point out to you that the rules of this forum prohibit the type of debate (or should I say presentation of ideas as supreme over others) that you are presently engaging in...

For your information... from the Rules stickied within the CC forum:
Sola Scriptura – Not all conservatives hold to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. As per the forum rules we all acknowledge the inspiration, complete reliability, and authority of scripture. However, some conservative Christians may hold Holy Tradition and the Church to be authoritative, or necessary to proper interpretation of scripture, in addition to the scriptures. Others do affirm Sola Scriptura, and are also welcomed equally on this forum.

Neither position is preferred. No rule will be made concerning the views of Sola Scriptura, or the Traditions of the Church. Which position is correct is to be determined by the individual, not the forum.
[snip]

The preceding points are held to be true by this forum and its members. Debate which denies or calls into question the aforementioned points will not be tolerated. People who disagree with or question these may visit and ask earnest questions but may not debate these points.

This is not the "Fundamentalist" forum. Fundamentalists are generally conservative, but not all conservatives are fundamentalists. Though most fundamentalists are very welcome here, we would like to stress that there is a difference between “fanatical” fundamentalists and those who define themselves as just “plain old Fundamentalists”. Our purpose in this forum is not to divide, but unite. As a result, those who find themselves on the more extreme end of this definition will need to restrain themselves when commenting here.

"Conservative Christian", both on CF and in the real world, represents an umbrella term under which many individuals, denominations, churches and other organizations unify in order to forward a common cause. Because of this, and in order to maintain unity on the Conservative Chri