Can I get this off my chest?

[colinlindsay]

Does anyone else feel this way?

Maybe I’ll find that many of you on the boards feel the same way about evangelicalism.

I’ve been a protestant evangelical mostly fundamental but also charismatic for 30 years. However my first exposure was Calvinistic Presbyterianism. I didn’t know it at the time but awkward bits of the bible were being filtered away from me. For example , as a result of pressure from the congregation the minister finally relented and preached on Revelations, but I didn’t understand at the time why he stopped after the letters to the 7 churches. Looking back it was my first encounter with ministers and preachers acting as ‘gatekeepers’ for God’s truth. I believe that has happened throughout my times in evangelical churches. So that’s my main gripe.

When I was converted I was given a Macarthur’s study Bible. The layreader told me to use the notes extensively so that I would understand what I was reading. More filtering….

Then I went to the only evangelical church around in my new town. It was respectably charismatic. I had to receive the Word filtered through another minister and his favoured preachers and books, the previous one never having touched on charismatic issues. All these experts were concerned that I don’t fall into error. And all of them disagreeing. Paul and Apollo etc etc…


I’ve heard hours and hours of preaching and just recently realised that the preachers have disagreed!. I’ve spent all that time thinking that any confusion I was receiving was MY fault. I had to try harder to harmonise what I was receiving.


I’ve realised also that the pulpit is the icon of authority for the evangelical. It is guarded jealously not normally as it turned out against outright heresy but against perfectly capable preachers in the congregation, who could start confusing and splitting the church. More filtering of God’s truth for the scripturally immature. It is a protestant version of the priest mediating for the laity. In fact I’ve even heard it justified, on the basis that we believe in Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura. Very subtle and rather revealing if not dangerous.


And I’ve seen how leaders handle the strong-willed, opinionated member of the congregation who is scratching as he sees it where the church itches. No matter that his exegesis is as reasonable as the leadership line, he is marginalised. This has happened with awkward prophets.

You know, in all of this I have sympathy with the minister. Those churches that seem to grow are led by a one-man band, whether it’s reformed or Anglican or charismatic.

I’ve realised that what’s been going on is the giving of lip-service to “Sola Scriptura” – each man capable of receiving God’s revelation through the Bible, but in fact we have a version of mini-multi-popery in each church.

I’ve met many Christians who feel frustrated with their insight being sidelined and they join internet-churches. But all they are doing is finding their own Apollos, teachers to scratch their itching ears.

I believe this happens because we have such a low view of church and a high view of propositional truth and a doctrinal box-ticking attitude towards acceptability. We mouth platitudes about “all-member-ministry” but we don’t know how to handle the boat-rocking when we give full-rein to this.
I seem to have been immersed, almost drowning, in a sea of talk and pontification and exposition and prophetic vision. (I remember this was Ghandi’s criticism of Christians). I remember paradigm after paradigm of the Biblical way to do "church" or "evangelism" or "ministry" or "leadership". I don't want to hear another.

I’ve been blessed by having a retreat time with a pastor, deeply respected in our area throughout the evangelical churches. Now he is retired he was able to share insights of his dealings with other leaders. They didn’t get on generally, there was competitiveness and mask-wearing. He thought this would inevitably be normative. I think it’s because of the nature of protestantism, driven practically by personality and individualism. Just look at how many personality-driven “ministries” there are.

Anybody relate to any of this?

[ReformedChapin]

The point of sola scriptura is that every individual has access the scripture. Is there going to be abuses? Yes, because we are sinners...that has even happened in the "apostolic churches" as well.

Can I relate to a situation(s) in which this occurred to me? Yep. In my old Church the pastor was pretty much was the mini pope of the church. But the problem wasn't sola scriptura but the lack of church government. The same was the reason with the church I went to before that. No one taking into account or lacking the responsibility to do something with the abuses.

[MrJim]

Does anyone else feel this way?

Maybe I’ll find that many of you on the boards feel the same way about evangelicalism.

I’ve been a protestant evangelical mostly fundamental but also charismatic for 30 years. However my first exposure was Calvinistic Presbyterianism. I didn’t know it at the time but awkward bits of the bible were being filtered away from me. For example , as a result of pressure from the congregation the minister finally relented and preached on Revelations, but I didn’t understand at the time why he stopped after the letters to the 7 churches. Looking back it was my first encounter with ministers and preachers acting as ‘gatekeepers’ for God’s truth. I believe that has happened throughout my times in evangelical churches. So that’s my main gripe.

When I was converted I was given a Macarthur’s study Bible. The layreader told me to use the notes extensively so that I would understand what I was reading. More filtering….

Then I went to the only evangelical church around in my new town. It was respectably charismatic. I had to receive the Word filtered through another minister and his favoured preachers and books, the previous one never having touched on charismatic issues. All these experts were concerned that I don’t fall into error. And all of them disagreeing. Paul and Apollo etc etc…


I’ve heard hours and hours of preaching and just recently realised that the preachers have disagreed!. I’ve spent all that time thinking that any confusion I was receiving was MY fault. I had to try harder to harmonise what I was receiving.


I’ve realised also that the pulpit is the icon of authority for the evangelical. It is guarded jealously not normally as it turned out against outright heresy but against perfectly capable preachers in the congregation, who could start confusing and splitting the church. More filtering of God’s truth for the scripturally immature. It is a protestant version of the priest mediating for the laity. In fact I’ve even heard it justified, on the basis that we believe in Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura. Very subtle and rather revealing if not dangerous.


And I’ve seen how leaders handle the strong-willed, opinionated member of the congregation who is scratching as he sees it where the church itches. No matter that his exegesis is as reasonable as the leadership line, he is marginalised. This has happened with awkward prophets.

You know, in all of this I have sympathy with the minister. Those churches that seem to grow are led by a one-man band, whether it’s reformed or Anglican or charismatic.

I’ve realised that what’s been going on is the giving of lip-service to “Sola Scriptura” – each man capable of receiving God’s revelation through the Bible, but in fact we have a version of mini-multi-popery in each church.

I’ve met many Christians who feel frustrated with their insight being sidelined and they join internet-churches. But all they are doing is finding their own Apollos, teachers to scratch their itching ears.

I believe this happens because we have such a low view of church and a high view of propositional truth and a doctrinal box-ticking attitude towards acceptability. We mouth platitudes about “all-member-ministry” but we don’t know how to handle the boat-rocking when we give full-rein to this.
I seem to have been immersed, almost drowning, in a sea of talk and pontification and exposition and prophetic vision. (I remember this was Ghandi’s criticism of Christians). I remember paradigm after paradigm of the Biblical way to do "church" or "evangelism" or "ministry" or "leadership". I don't want to hear another.

I’ve been blessed by having a retreat time with a pastor, deeply respected in our area throughout the evangelical churches. Now he is retired he was able to share insights of his dealings with other leaders. They didn’t get on generally, there was competitiveness and mask-wearing. He thought this would inevitably be normative. I think it’s because of the nature of protestantism, driven practically by personality and individualism. Just look at how many personality-driven “ministries” there are.

Anybody relate to any of this?

Yeah I can relate~I've gone from Church of God [Winebrenner] to Mennonite to Evangelical Free to Reformed Baptist to American Baptist in the past 20 years continuing to follow what I thought to be the "correct" interpretations via Sola Scriptura.

The effect it has had with me is that it's driving me toward the apostolic church, mostly the Catholic Church. It seems to me the SS teaching isn't all it's cracked up to be, and has simply created thousands of popes across the world, each of us deciding what and how to understand the bible...my studying keeps pushing me toward Rome~crazy as that soundshttp://bestsmileys.com/freak/5.gif~for I don't think Sola Scriptura is sufficient...

[colinlindsay]

Well now,

I have to say I'm surprised that others feel something of the way I feel.

And yet, I found that once I share with many others, I find Christians who are just waiting for a forum where they can express their misgivings.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I left protestantism for similiar reasons. Before I became Catholic I realized how easy it was for me to make the bible say whatever I wanted. I go to one pastor and get one answer or to another, until I got the one I wanted. In the end, there was never any certainty and there was no real basis for my faith. The basis for myself was whatever I wanted.

[Albion]

Does anyone else feel this way?
Yes, I appreciate what you're saying. I have two reactions that I'll pass along, and I hope that they will have some meaning for you. If not, I welcome your questions and hope that someone else will be able to hit the right notes.

First, I think the description of Sola Scriptura is wrong. Maybe this contributes to the bigger problem.

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is what we place our stock in when looking for the truth, not traditions, councils, Popes, and so on which WERE the norm in Luther's day and which led him to this famous response (Sola Scriptura).

It doesn't mean that everyone can read the Bible and understand it perfectly. We do believe that everyone should have the right to do that, however,and to follow his conscience without being persecuted by the Church--again, a problem in the time of Luther's youth which led to the Reformation. So, there's no magic answer to everything just because we champion Sola Scriptura; it is a means to an end.

Secondly, the Church is Christ's...but men populate it. In ANY organization, even one dedicated to the highest of objectives, the presence of humans will cause all-too-human problems.

You have to not let this color your faith, and there is no reason why it should, although it might lead you to another congregation. I don't see a particular problem with ministers tailoring their preaching one way or the other. They are not gods, just preachers. If any one of them, fails, the Church of Christ is not destroyed and the Word of God (by Sola Scriptura) which we place at the top of our guidance systems, not men, is not impaired.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

In Luther's day, the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils and Holy Tradition (the teachings of the apostles) were all equal to the bible. That is because they all proceded from the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that the bible never laid out is should be the sole rule of faith or that the Holy Spirit doesn't speak through the bishops of the Church. The early Church followed scripture because they knew it came from the Holy Spirit, as did the teachings from the bishops and ecumenical councils.

[ReformedChapin]

In Luther's day, the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils and Holy Tradition (the teachings of the apostles) were all equal to the bible. That is because they all proceded from the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that the bible never laid out is should be the sole rule of faith or that the Holy Spirit doesn't speak through the bishops of the Church. The early Church followed scripture because they knew it came from the Holy Spirit, as did the teachings from the bishops and ecumenical councils.
The truth is still beein percieved by the saints through the holy spirit with his elect through the world using the scripture as its basis.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

The truth is still beein percieved by the saints through the holy spirit with his elect through the world using the scripture as its basis.

I'm really not interested in getting into a debate about Mormonism here. That's not what this topic is for- but if you want to discuss it elsewhere, I'm fine with it. I will note the idea that we should follow the bible and be lead by the Holy Spirit has already been pointed out as flawed. Everyone is claiming that and being their own mini-pope.

[ReformedChapin]

I'm really not interested in getting into a debate about Mormonism here. That's not what this topic is for- but if you want to discuss it elsewhere, I'm fine with it. I will note the idea that we should follow the bible and be lead by the Holy Spirit has already been pointed out as flawed. Everyone is claiming that and being their own mini-pope.
I'm not a mormon...that's a joke.

I'm reformed and if its flawed please discuss.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I'm not a mormon...that's a joke.

I'm reformed and if its flawed please discuss.

NewGuy- I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it would be rude to discuss the flaws of your beliefs here (as that is what you seem to want me to do). You are free to make a topic about it elsewhere.

[Albion]

In Luther's day, the declarations of the Ecumenical Councils and Holy Tradition (the teachings of the apostles) were all equal to the bible. That is because they all proceded from the Holy Spirit.

Of course that is what the Church would say. Luther's contribution, among others, was to assert that each person has the freedom to approach God according to his conscience, whether or not someone else says he has no right to.

The problem is that the bible never laid out is should be the sole rule of faith or that the Holy Spirit doesn't speak through the bishops of the Church.

...and it doesn't teach that there are little green men on Mars. What the Bible teaches, the Bible teaches. And it certainly does teach that it 1) is of divine origin, and 2) of the highest worth. To substitute the speculations of men, councils, custom, or call them an additional source of divine guidance is what Luther was warning against.

BTW, let's not let this be another hijacked thread. The OP didn't ask for our opinions about the rightness or wrongness of Sola Scriptura, and I responded to it with reference to Sola Scriptura only to try to get the meaning of the term straight, not to promote it or denounce it for the benefit of the writer of the OP, colinlindsay.

[ReformedChapin]

NewGuy- I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it would be rude to discuss the flaws of your beliefs here (as that is what you seem to want me to do). You are free to make a topic about it elsewhere.
hmm should I go to the catholic forum so I can get jumped again? LOL

If you didnt want to make a battle of this you shouldn't have attacked sola scripture first when the posters intent was to relate to her experiences in church.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

hmm should I go to the catholic forum so I can get jumped again? LOL

If you didnt want to make a battle of this you shouldn't have attacked sola scripture first when the posters intent is just have a person relate to her experiences in church.

I didn't 'attack' sola scriptura- I pointed out my own personal experiences related to it that the OP and other members had realized. I understand your objection to it, but I'm not going to debate it here. I'm not going to further derail the topic by talking about it. Either make a topic about it in GT or even CC if you want me to discuss it further.

[ReformedChapin]

I didn't 'attack' sola scriptura- I pointed out my own personal experiences related to it that the OP and other members had realized. I understand your objection to it, but I'm not going to debate it here. I'm not going to further derail the topic by talking about it. Either make a topic about it in GT or even CC if you want me to discuss it further.
Another poster clearly saw your intent...


Of course that is what the Church would say. Luther's contribution, among others, was to assert that each person has the freedom to approach God according to his conscience, whether or not someone else says he has no right to.



...and it doesn't teach that there are little green men on Mars. What the Bible teaches, the Bible teaches. And it certainly does teach that it 1) is of divine origin, and 2) of the highest worth. To substitute the speculations of men, councils, custom, or call them an additional source of divine guidance is what Luther was warning against.

BTW, let's not let this be another hijacked thread. The OP didn't ask for our opinions about the rightness or wrongness of Sola Scriptura, and I responded to it with reference to Sola Scriptura only to try to get the meaning of the term straight, not to promote it or denounce it for the benefit of the writer of the OP, colinlindsay.

But if you didn't attack it, then we got no beef. :)

[Albion]

But if you didn't attack it, then we got no beef. :)

"Attack it?" How could anyone get that from what I wrote?

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

"Attack it?" How could anyone get that from what I wrote?

Don't feel bad, I think unless you are froathing at the mouth and saying in very plain words never to question SS, you are attacking.

I saw that you were supporting SS, Albion.

[ReformedChapin]

"Attack it?" How could anyone get that from what I wrote?
I was quoting you in the sense that you clearly saw that spiritual was attacking SS and you defended it.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You do realize he was responding to someone else?

[ReformedChapin]

:scratch:

[Albion]

New Guy--I guess I follow your meaning now. Thanks.

Spiritual--I appreciate your previous post to me.

And let's all just go back to what the OP was asking us. That's what we are supposed to be answering, after all.

[colinlindsay]

Yes, back to the OP.

It is interesting that we have opened up a debate about SS.

From the outside (say the world or Eastern Orthodoxy), it either seems arcane or a symptom of the problem.

Can we really argue, on these boards, after 600 (or is it 2000) years for the definitive answer?

My OP is about the pathology of the protestant project itself. Granted it's made up of MEN, but can the exposition of scriptures ever give us confidence that we will arrive at that unity of heart, mind and spirit that Christ requires of us?

Just look at the plethora of discernment sites. All of these are predicated, at some point, on presuppositions (Hebrew roots, covenantism, dispensationalism or whatever) and they all spawn their own crowd of acolytes, following a modern-day Apollos or Paul.

In my experience it's SO easy to find reasons not to seek unity and it's extremely difficult to establish it.

Have these boards, with all their different streams of thought, in any way encouraged oneness or rather the opposite?

By the way I've found Matthew Gallatin's "Thirsting for God" very helpful here.

[MrJim]

Yes, back to the OP.

It is interesting that we have opened up a debate about SS.

From the outside (say the world or Eastern Orthodoxy), it either seems arcane or a symptom of the problem.

Can we really argue, on these boards, after 600 (or is it 2000) years for the definitive answer?

My OP is about the pathology of the protestant project itself. Granted it's made up of MEN, but can the exposition of scriptures ever give us confidence that we will arrive at that unity of heart, mind and spirit that Christ requires of us?

Just look at the plethora of discernment sites. All of these are predicated, at some point, on presuppositions (Hebrew roots, covenantism, dispensationalism or whatever) and they all spawn their own crowd of acolytes, following a modern-day Apollos or Paul.

In my experience it's SO easy to find reasons not to seek unity and it's extremely difficult to establish it.

Have these boards, with all their different streams of thought, in any way encouraged oneness or rather the opposite?

By the way I've found Matthew Gallatin's "Thirsting for God" very helpful here.

The SS issue is a common thread in the evangelical-to-apostolic conversion stories. I've finished rereading some of "Surprised by Truth" by Patrick Madrid, which is a collection of Catholic conversion testimonies. Sola Scriptura is the keystone and once it's yanked everything else tumbles.

I have Gallatin's book on the shelf~read it 3x~Orthodox are :cool:

[Albion]

Yes, back to the OP.

My OP is about the pathology of the protestant project itself.

Hmmm. "pathology" of the protestant "project."

Are you asking us about your theological perceptions...or telling us what we are to conclude?

Granted it's made up of MEN, but can the exposition of scriptures ever give us confidence that we will arrive at that unity of heart, mind and spirit that Christ requires of us?

What's the alternative--sort through the various expositions of human religious theories about God and the scripture...and settle on one of them? How can removing yourself one further step away from the source of truth be an improvement?

Just look at the plethora of discernment sites.

But if you name ANY theological camp, group, or POV, you'll find the same plethora.

[colinlindsay]

Well, what IS it that we've done wrong over the centuries?

What is it that we have pursued as believers but which has caused all our division, in opposition to the command of Christ.

It's because we've not understood or found too difficult I Corinthians 13. We don't believe in fact that Love conquers all.

We believe having the correct creed, down to fine detail, brings unity.

I think experience and hisrory has proved that wrong.

[Albion]

Well, what IS it that we've done wrong over the centuries?

What is it that we have pursued as believers but which has caused all our division, in opposition to the command of Christ.

It's because we've not understood or found too difficult I Corinthians 13. We don't believe in fact that Love conquers all.

We believe having the correct creed, down to fine detail, brings unity.

I think experience and hisrory has proved that wrong.

I understand--I think.

I myself have thought similar thoughts in my life's journey, so I want to "go with" what you are saying and see if we can come to some greater clarity. The problem I am having is that it appears to me from your later posts that you are being persuaded that if 100 denominational answers are confusing and contradictory, #101 isn't just another one out of a total of 101. I'd say that it is.

Help me out as I try to get a handle on what you're telling us.

Maybe the sticking point is "unity." No, we won't have unity so long as men are sinners and have the ability to misunderstand. No particular church or denomination or communion can overcome that.

[ReformedChapin]

Yes, back to the OP.

It is interesting that we have opened up a debate about SS.

From the outside (say the world or Eastern Orthodoxy), it either seems arcane or a symptom of the problem.

Can we really argue, on these boards, after 600 (or is it 2000) years for the definitive answer?

My OP is about the pathology of the protestant project itself. Granted it's made up of MEN, but can the exposition of scriptures ever give us confidence that we will arrive at that unity of heart, mind and spirit that Christ requires of us?

Just look at the plethora of discernment sites. All of these are predicated, at some point, on presuppositions (Hebrew roots, covenantism, dispensationalism or whatever) and they all spawn their own crowd of acolytes, following a modern-day Apollos or Paul.

In my experience it's SO easy to find reasons not to seek unity and it's extremely difficult to establish it.

Have these boards, with all their different streams of thought, in any way encouraged oneness or rather the opposite?

By the way I've found Matthew Gallatin's "Thirsting for God" very helpful here.
An open door for debate is essential. I think the reformation prove that in more than one case. It's ok to debate the issues and have each individual truthfully believe something rather than force a standard down their throat. Besides all the fights and schisms, there is unity in the body of (orthodox) believers the belief that Jesus Christ is Lord and savior all others are secondary issues.

[Izdaari]

Does anyone else feel this way?

Maybe I’ll find that many of you on the boards feel the same way about evangelicalism.

I’ve been a protestant evangelical mostly fundamental but also charismatic for 30 years. However my first exposure was Calvinistic Presbyterianism. I didn’t know it at the time but awkward bits of the bible were being filtered away from me. For example , as a result of pressure from the congregation the minister finally relented and preached on Revelations, but I didn’t understand at the time why he stopped after the letters to the 7 churches. Looking back it was my first encounter with ministers and preachers acting as ‘gatekeepers’ for God’s truth. I believe that has happened throughout my times in evangelical churches. So that’s my main gripe.

When I was converted I was given a Macarthur’s study Bible. The layreader told me to use the notes extensively so that I would understand what I was reading. More filtering….

Then I went to the only evangelical church around in my new town. It was respectably charismatic. I had to receive the Word filtered through another minister and his favoured preachers and books, the previous one never having touched on charismatic issues. All these experts were concerned that I don’t fall into error. And all of them disagreeing. Paul and Apollo etc etc…


I’ve heard hours and hours of preaching and just recently realised that the preachers have disagreed!. I’ve spent all that time thinking that any confusion I was receiving was MY fault. I had to try harder to harmonise what I was receiving.


I’ve realised also that the pulpit is the icon of authority for the evangelical. It is guarded jealously not normally as it turned out against outright heresy but against perfectly capable preachers in the congregation, who could start confusing and splitting the church. More filtering of God’s truth for the scripturally immature. It is a protestant version of the priest mediating for the laity. In fact I’ve even heard it justified, on the basis that we believe in Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura. Very subtle and rather revealing if not dangerous.


And I’ve seen how leaders handle the strong-willed, opinionated member of the congregation who is scratching as he sees it where the church itches. No matter that his exegesis is as reasonable as the leadership line, he is marginalised. This has happened with awkward prophets.

You know, in all of this I have sympathy with the minister. Those churches that seem to grow are led by a one-man band, whether it’s reformed or Anglican or charismatic.

I’ve realised that what’s been going on is the giving of lip-service to “Sola Scriptura” – each man capable of receiving God’s revelation through the Bible, but in fact we have a version of mini-multi-popery in each church.

I’ve met many Christians who feel frustrated with their insight being sidelined and they join internet-churches. But all they are doing is finding their own Apollos, teachers to scratch their itching ears.

I believe this happens because we have such a low view of church and a high view of propositional truth and a doctrinal box-ticking attitude towards acceptability. We mouth platitudes about “all-member-ministry” but we don’t know how to handle the boat-rocking when we give full-rein to this.
I seem to have been immersed, almost drowning, in a sea of talk and pontification and exposition and prophetic vision. (I remember this was Ghandi’s criticism of Christians). I remember paradigm after paradigm of the Biblical way to do "church" or "evangelism" or "ministry" or "leadership". I don't want to hear another.

I’ve been blessed by having a retreat time with a pastor, deeply respected in our area throughout the evangelical churches. Now he is retired he was able to share insights of his dealings with other leaders. They didn’t get on generally, there was competitiveness and mask-wearing. He thought this would inevitably be normative. I think it’s because of the nature of protestantism, driven practically by personality and individualism. Just look at how many personality-driven “ministries” there are.

Anybody relate to any of this?
I can understand and sympathize, but I haven't personally experienced any of that. Maybe that's because my current church is my first evangelical church and my first charismatic church. It also happens to be the first church I've attended that I've been really satisfied with over a decently long period, and the first that I've felt moved to join. I don't see much if any theological filtering or 'gatekeeping' there.

Nor would I comply with it if there were. I read what I want to, always have and always will. I form my own opinions, and don't accept what anyone says just on their own authority. If my church tried to push me in a direction I didn't agree was where God wanted me to go, I'd be out of there.

[Albion]

An open door for debate is essential. I think the reformation prove that in more than one case. It's ok to debate the issues and have each individual truthfully believe something rather than force a standard down their throat. Besides all the fights and schisms, there is unity in the body of (orthodox) believers the belief that Jesus Christ is Lord and savior all others are secondary issues.

This is just a side comment on my part, but if anyone is disappointed in the people who go to this or that church, in the pastor, or in the style of worship, etc. he's certainly not going to be MORE at ease joining one of those churches which claims to be the only true church.

Reformed Christianity at least holds that the invisible church is the real church, i.e. the total of all true believers in the Lord, regardless of denomination. This means that we understand that humans are only human and can turn out to be failures or disappointments...without that fact forcing us to conclude at the same time that somehow the Church itself has failed. It's merely a problem with that particular congregation.

[Simon_Templar]

I stated this already in this thread over in the spirit filled forum, but I'll say it here as well for discussion.

We all agree that the bible is authoritative and the inspired word of God. However, even if you accept the bible as the highest authority, we all still have a major problem, and that is interpetation.

The bible is objectively true, it is authoritative, it is absolute.

However, we are not objective creatures by nature. Infact objectivity is very hard if not impossible to achieve in our perseptions and interpetations of most things in life.

So how do we get the objective truth of scripture, through the filter of our subjective minds unscathed??

I've been struggling with this for a long time now and I've seen three basic answers from three different sections of the Church.

#1 - In the Charismatic/pentecostal Church the answer is that each individual person will be inspired and enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand scripture. This places the emphasis on personal revelation of understanding. It is scripturally based in that the bible tells us that the spiritual man understands the things of God while the natural man does not, the Holy Spirit renews us and teaches us etc. However it is often, very often, abused in that it "spirituality" is often equated with personal feeling and the "heart" which the bible tells us is decietful above all things. This often also results in the unteachable attitude that the person doesn't need to be taught by anyone because the Holy Spirit reveals truth to them.

#2 - the Reformed answer, Sola Scriptura proper, in which the individual person seeks to aprehend the scriptures by rational persuit. Tradition and history are used to provide context, but little else. It is recognized that the individual needs teaching, but in the end the individual's conscience, and thus the individual's interpetation reigns supreme. The abuses of this view are that it results in a somewhat rationalistic approach, which may pay lip service to the guiding of the Holy Spirit, but in my experience doesn't really consider it in a serious active way. Further, it tends towards relativistic results because the fact remains that the subjectivity of human perception and reason is not really mitigated. This view, as the others, does have biblical support in that its clear that individuals should have access to the scriptures and should test what they are taught by the scriptures, and are responsible for following the truth and rejecting falsehood no matter who teaches it.

#3 - the Catholic/Orthodox view that the Church authoritatively interpets scripture. In this view the Holy Spirit inspires the Church corperately, and imbues it with authority to interpet scripture. The abuses of this view are historically evident as are the abuses of the other two. The Church can go astray and has done so at various points in the past, even if it is always righted in the end, at any given point the Church is capable of being wrong. Further, this has lead to the people being deprived of the scriptures and some grevious abuses.
However, this view as well, has scriptural support. It is undeniably clear in scripture that ordained leaders of the Church have authority to teach. The fact that they have authority means that those who are under their care have an obligation to that authority. The Scriptures also say that the Church is the foundation and bulwark of the truth.

[Albion]

I stated this already in this thread over in the spirit filled forum, but I'll say it here as well for discussion.

We all agree that the bible is authoritative and the inspired word of God. However, even if you accept the bible as the highest authority, we all still have a major problem, and that is interpetation.

The bible is objectively true, it is authoritative, it is absolute.

However, we are not objective creatures by nature. Infact objectivity is very hard if not impossible to achieve in our perseptions and interpetations of most things in life.

So how do we get the objective truth of scripture, through the filter of our subjective minds unscathed??

I've been struggling with this for a long time now and I've seen three basic answers from three different sections of the Church.

#1 - In the Charismatic/pentecostal Church the answer is that each individual person will be inspired and enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand scripture. This places the emphasis on personal revelation of understanding. It is scripturally based in that the bible tells us that the spiritual man understands the things of God while the natural man does not, the Holy Spirit renews us and teaches us etc. However it is often, very often, abused in that it "spirituality" is often equated with personal feeling and the "heart" which the bible tells us is decietful above all things. This often also results in the unteachable attitude that the person doesn't need to be taught by anyone because the Holy Spirit reveals truth to them.

#2 - the Reformed answer, Sola Scriptura proper, in which the individual person seeks to aprehend the scriptures by rational persuit. Tradition and history are used to provide context, but little else. It is recognized that the individual needs teaching, but in the end the individual's conscience, and thus the individual's interpetation reigns supreme. The abuses of this view are that it results in a somewhat rationalistic approach, which may pay lip service to the guiding of the Holy Spirit, but in my experience doesn't really consider it in a serious active way. Further, it tends towards relativistic results because the fact remains that the subjectivity of human perception and reason is not really mitigated. This view, as the others, does have biblical support in that its clear that individuals should have access to the scriptures and should test what they are taught by the scriptures, and are responsible for following the truth and rejecting falsehood no matter who teaches it.

#3 - the Catholic/Orthodox view that the Church authoritatively interpets scripture. In this view the Holy Spirit inspires the Church corperately, and imbues it with authority to interpet scripture. The abuses of this view are historically evident as are the abuses of the other two. The Church can go astray and has done so at various points in the past, even if it is always righted in the end, at any given point the Church is capable of being wrong. Further, this has lead to the people being deprived of the scriptures and some grevious abuses.
However, this view as well, has scriptural support. It is undeniably clear in scripture that ordained leaders of the Church have authority to teach. The fact that they have authority means that those who are under their care have an obligation to that authority. The Scriptures also say that the Church is the foundation and bulwark of the truth.

How about the obvious?--

#4. There is no magic bullet. God didn't promise one, either. God gave us in scripture all that we need to know in order to accomplish that which we are to know here and now. More wisdom will come after death, but this is what we are to learn now. And almost anyone can understand that purpose i.e. that we accept the Lord as personal savior and be saved because of what He did for us.

That's it.

The rest--that which is the subject of the endless searching for some perfect interpretation of every last nuance in scripture deals with non-essentials, even if the search could lead to perfect knowledge.

Some will understand the Gospel message better than others, but that is the case no matter whether you or I favor #1, #2, or #3. Not everyone will comprehend everything in scripture NO MATTER WHAT.

The pursuit of perfect comprehension is both an illusion and irrelevant. But that's the way people are; they want to be reassured to the point of having every loose end tied up mentally. We are uncomfortable having to live with what we lost in the Garden of Eden.

The problem with all of the other approaches (1-3) is that they postulate that there must be some infallible way of knowing everything about God and Man that can be known, that can be ferretted out of Holy Writ. That's a mistake.

Moreover, you cannot be at ease with the answer you find most tidy (#3)--the "one true church, don't question it" theory--because there is no way of knowing 100% if there is such a thing or if the one you settle on is it. You can compare the self-serving claims of one church or another that makes such a claim for itself, but it all depends in the end upon whose version of history is correct, and that cannot be known with absolute certainty any more than you can have a flawless interpretation of scripture itself. In taking the route of the "Church will interpret for me" all that one does is remove the guessing one step further from God. If you don't know all the scripture testifies to, you aren't going to know if the self-appointed interpreter of that scripture is right either.

[Simon_Templar]

How about the obvious?--

#4. There is no magic bullet.

There are, however, two ways you can go with this. One is to say that we simply can't really know. You can say, for example, that *almost* anyone can get the basic gospel, which I of course agree with, but if we are going to apply an honest, and rigorous standard then we would have to admit the possability that we are wrong even at that basic level, since there are, as you well know, people who disagree even with that, and a growing number of liberal persuasion who interpet even that basic level in a significantly different manner.

The reality of this is that if you say "well the vast majority of people know what it means" or "everyone sensible knows what it means" all you are really doing is reverting back to consensus, which is just another version of #3.

The other way this can be taken is simply that we can't conclusively reason out the answer and we have to recieve it by faith. In which case, you can pick whichever of the answers you like because they all work equally well at that point.


Moreover, you cannot be at ease with the answer you find most tidy (#3)--the "one true church, don't question it" theory...

You're assuming that I find that answer the most tidy. I've argued both sides of this issue in conversations before. The reality is that I don't know. At this point there are significant enough problems with all 3 of the options I stated that I won't accept any one of them exclusive of the others.

Based on scripture I see reasons and support for all three, based on history I see problems with all three.

[Albion]

There are, however, two ways you can go with this. One is to say that we simply can't really know. You can say, for example, that *almost* anyone can get the basic gospel, which I of course agree with, but if we are going to apply an honest, and rigorous standard then we would have to admit the possability that we are wrong even at that basic level, since there are, as you well know, people who disagree even with that, and a growing number of liberal persuasion who interpet even that basic level in a significantly different manner.

Of course.

You're assuming that I find that answer the most tidy. I've argued both sides of this issue in conversations before. The reality is that I don't know. At this point there are significant enough problems with all 3 of the options I stated that I won't accept any one of them exclusive of the others.

Now that I read your words again, I can appreciate that.

[Izdaari]

Based on scripture I see reasons and support for all three, based on history I see problems with all three.
That's about where I am with it. But I'd interpret #3 a little differently -- the only church tradition I give much weight to is what C.S. Lewis called "mere Christianity", i.e. the teachings accepted by nearly all Christians since the beginning of the faith. That I give at least a presumption of being right.

So, #1, 2 and 3 (as I've redefined it) considered together and balanced against each other is what I have to go with.

That doesn't leave us with a clear path to certainty on anything but the basics of the faith... but I think the basics are all we really need certainty on. Other things we can afford to be in some doubt about.

[colinlindsay]

Hello there.
#
Thank God for this thread. Some interesting stuff and it's quite clear that people do feel the way I do.

Some have even ended up with Brian Maclaren.

At least here, my spirituality hasn't been attacked.

[Izdaari]

Hello there.
#
Thank God for this thread. Some interesting stuff and it's quite clear that people do feel the way I do.

Some have even ended up with Brian Maclaren.

At least here, my spirituality hasn't been attacked.
Yeah, we have some good talks around here. :)

I don't necessarily think McLaren's answer is a bad one. I have his book, A Generous Orthodoxy. I haven't finished it yet, but I can say he makes a lot of sense to me so far.

[MoNiCa4316]

Does anyone else feel this way?

Maybe I’ll find that many of you on the boards feel the same way about evangelicalism.

I’ve been a protestant evangelical mostly fundamental but also charismatic for 30 years. However my first exposure was Calvinistic Presbyterianism. I didn’t know it at the time but awkward bits of the bible were being filtered away from me. For example , as a result of pressure from the congregation the minister finally relented and preached on Revelations, but I didn’t understand at the time why he stopped after the letters to the 7 churches. Looking back it was my first encounter with ministers and preachers acting as ‘gatekeepers’ for God’s truth. I believe that has happened throughout my times in evangelical churches. So that’s my main gripe.

When I was converted I was given a Macarthur’s study Bible. The layreader told me to use the notes extensively so that I would understand what I was reading. More filtering….

Then I went to the only evangelical church around in my new town. It was respectably charismatic. I had to receive the Word filtered through another minister and his favoured preachers and books, the previous one never having touched on charismatic issues. All these experts were concerned that I don’t fall into error. And all of them disagreeing. Paul and Apollo etc etc…


I’ve heard hours and hours of preaching and just recently realised that the preachers have disagreed!. I’ve spent all that time thinking that any confusion I was receiving was MY fault. I had to try harder to harmonise what I was receiving.


I’ve realised also that the pulpit is the icon of authority for the evangelical. It is guarded jealously not normally as it turned out against outright heresy but against perfectly capable preachers in the congregation, who could start confusing and splitting the church. More filtering of God’s truth for the scripturally immature. It is a protestant version of the priest mediating for the laity. In fact I’ve even heard it justified, on the basis that we believe in Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura. Very subtle and rather revealing if not dangerous.


And I’ve seen how leaders handle the strong-willed, opinionated member of the congregation who is scratching as he sees it where the church itches. No matter that his exegesis is as reasonable as the leadership line, he is marginalised. This has happened with awkward prophets.

You know, in all of this I have sympathy with the minister. Those churches that seem to grow are led by a one-man band, whether it’s reformed or Anglican or charismatic.

I’ve realised that what’s been going on is the giving of lip-service to “Sola Scriptura” – each man capable of receiving God’s revelation through the Bible, but in fact we have a version of mini-multi-popery in each church.

I’ve met many Christians who feel frustrated with their insight being sidelined and they join internet-churches. But all they are doing is finding their own Apollos, teachers to scratch their itching ears.

I believe this happens because we have such a low view of church and a high view of propositional truth and a doctrinal box-ticking attitude towards acceptability. We mouth platitudes about “all-member-ministry” but we don’t know how to handle the boat-rocking when we give full-rein to this.
I seem to have been immersed, almost drowning, in a sea of talk and pontification and exposition and prophetic vision. (I remember this was Ghandi’s criticism of Christians). I remember paradigm after paradigm of the Biblical way to do "church" or "evangelism" or "ministry" or "leadership". I don't want to hear another.

I’ve been blessed by having a retreat time with a pastor, deeply respected in our area throughout the evangelical churches. Now he is retired he was able to share insights of his dealings with other leaders. They didn’t get on generally, there was competitiveness and mask-wearing. He thought this would inevitably be normative. I think it’s because of the nature of protestantism, driven practically by personality and individualism. Just look at how many personality-driven “ministries” there are.

Anybody relate to any of this?

:wave: I can relate to this too...
I used to be evangelical and went to a good church, I really liked it there..but now I see that some parts of the Bible were in fact filtered out, because they didn't fit the "evangelical Protestant understanding of Christianity". My church wasn't very bad at all...we had a really good pastor, and his sermons were challenging and not watered down. But I see in the Bible ideas that were never talked about, even though they are pretty important... when I read about the early church, I saw beliefs that evangelical Protestantism rejects, such as the real presence in Communion. Christians believed this as early 150 AD, which suggests that's what the Apostles taught too...and it was believed by all Christians until Zwingli came along. After that, I realized that I couldn't stay. I had great experiences in that church and it brought me closer to God... but I realized that even though the pastor was really trying to give us the right teaching, and succeeding on many levels, there were some serious flaws... when compared to what Christians have believed in the beginning..

The way I see it, the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant...but the reason I disagree with sola scriptura is because it doesn't interpret itself. I really tried to believe that it does, but couldn't figure out why there are so many different interpretations out there...all claimed to be "from the Holy Spirit".. the way I believe it now, is that "traditional" Christian churches have held on to the historical interpretation of Scripture from the Apostles...and the Holy Spirit convicts people of this interpretation so that they are able to believe it on a personal level...and have it change their lives.. the Church, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible: all go together...and evangelical "Bible only" Protestantism separates them for some reason...

[colinlindsay]

< < The rest--that which is the subject of the endless searching for some perfect interpretation of every last nuance in scripture deals with non-essentials, even if the search could lead to perfect knowledge. > >

This is what I meant by a 'bolshevik' attitude towards truth - essentially propositional and credal, dotting the i's and crossing the t's. And you know how many heretics that flushed out. Certainly this may be a Jewish roots way of looking at truth - why not go down the path described by Rob Bell in "Velvet Elvis" with the Bible as a communal open-ended book, continually needing interpreting , and a rabbinical "binding and loosing" based on authority and expertise. Let's recognise that there will be different schools. The Orhodox Jews seem to accept this and even relish it.
And yet, isn't that effectively what we DO have anyway? Different camps and starting points and lots of TALK. Maybe Christianty isn't primarily a religion of a book. I seem to remember it was Jesus who said HE was the way, the TRUTH and the life.

[Simon_Templar]

< < The rest--that which is the subject of the endless searching for some perfect interpretation of every last nuance in scripture deals with non-essentials, even if the search could lead to perfect knowledge. > >

This is what I meant by a 'bolshevik' attitude towards truth - essentially propositional and credal, dotting the i's and crossing the t's. And you know how many heretics that flushed out. Certainly this may be a Jewish roots way of looking at truth - why not go down the path described by Rob Bell in "Velvet Elvis" with the Bible as a communal open-ended book, continually needing interpreting , and a rabbinical "binding and loosing" based on authority and expertise. Let's recognise that there will be different schools. The Orhodox Jews seem to accept this and even relish it.
And yet, isn't that effectively what we DO have anyway? Different camps and starting points and lots of TALK. Maybe Christianty isn't primarily a religion of a book. I seem to remember it was Jesus who said HE was the way, the TRUTH and the life.
Truth is absolute and objective. Or it is nothing at all.

What you are dealing with is the problem of how do we accurately discover and comprehend objective truth, through subjective perception.

To say, however, that there are different schools of truth, or that truth is open ended etc, is essentially to say that there is no truth.

Science faces much the same problem in looking at the world. The laws of nature are objective as well, yet how do we verify them through observation which is often subjective?

The answer science gives is essentially that of methodology and consensus. When proper methodology is used, AND there is agreement between all impartial observers, then a thing is objectively established.

The Church took much the same approach to scripture and that is basically what Church councils do. They establish those things upon which there is consensus.

You mention creedal, well thats how the creeds came to be. The Church looked at the bible and said "what are the core ideas here that everyone agrees on?" Those are established as objective truths that the bible teaches.

If you do not hold yourself to standards like that, or AT LEAST methodological standards, you might as well not even have a bible because it has ceased to be a source of truth and you have become your own truth.

[colinlindsay]

I offer these experiences not as any final word to prove any mojor point, but to see if any of you out there have thought anything similar/ (By the way, some things in Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis" seem to have resonance)
Do you know, I can honestly say I love the people in my church and would you believe it, as long as I am in their church, I will obey and be submissive.


The difference now, is that thanks to some unique and first-time OPEN-HEARTEDNESS with me from maybe 3 or 4 pastors and leaders, who are out of saddle temporarily, or retired and who shared what had been really happening.
There really is a kind of act going on , where we all obey certain rules. The application of the rules varies from denomination to denomination (oh the arbitrariness of it!!). I've always been told that "we are all men" and sinners, etc but practically (as if these men were the Word of God itself), I accepted everything they said and did as OF GOD. I've spent 20 years trying to harmonise the unharmonisable. And much of the disfunction the world sees in individual Christians is I think caused by the latter's own angst at being unable to harmonise all those teachings and their own experience.
I now accept that I don't have to accept ANY teaching or behaviour example from my leaders. I have the right and I will test it all against the scripture, which is the story of God's dealings with the world and His people.
Maybe a turning piont came when Bishop Tom Wright (there's an intellectual and a theologian for you) said unapologetically that most likely 25% of what he believed and preached now was wrong. I've never heard such a confession from any other preacher - but why not, it's got to be true of 98% of them.

The trouble is that many church leaders don't meet non-Christians and they are isolated by a deluding round of denomination meetings, conferences and introspection and then a cosy world of their own church.

It does seem that the protestant project, if it means treating the Bible as being a book of 'answers' rather than a record of God's dealings with man, is going to end with not just 32000 different Bible-believing denominations but deep frustration and a destroyed witness to the world.


I suppose I just wonder whether each protestant church or minister produces little clones of us all, unless we are careful. Or do we just go to churches that suit or personality? Maybe that goes for the doctrine we choose for ourselves.

Now, I'm NOT complaining about the weakness, failure or shortcomings of anybody here. We are ALL flawed.

What I'm annoyed with is the way we aren't real or family with each other and the world.

If we are not careful, God will be allowed numerous 'Borats' to disrupt our assemblies and humiliate us by mass media showing up our idiocies.

I am sincerely glad that a poster is grateful for his or her church. I hope also by that he or she isn’t just expressing scepticism about the point I’m making.
I’m grateful for my church, that my minister (what a give-away expression that is – surely that precludes the rest of us being ministers, maybe after all bishop is better, which its implications for ‘oversight’), has adopted a very laid-back, weakly-directive, common-denominator preaching/leadership role. I think he has come to where I am, but obviously can’t express these thoughts. As long as there is no great sinful behaviour or outrageous doctrine being flaunted, then he prefers ‘not to hold a mirror into people’s souls’ (Queen El.izabeth’s words)
But as far as a witness to the world is concerned, haven’t you had a thinking person caustically say to you, “And what branch of Christianity do YOU belong to then?”?. No wonder the media can just pick us off by ridicule and caricature.

[TexasSky]

If your pastor is a man of God, you can approach him, and discuss these things with him.

My pastor most of my life was the retired president of Southwestern Theological Seminary, and the whole world was using the King James Bible. I was about 13 the first time I went to his office and said, "I don't understand this," and instead of shooing me out of his office, he got out Greek and Hebrew Bibles, charts of time lines, books on tradition, and he taught a bible class to me in his study (yes, his secretary was present so no one accused him of evil.) From that day forward, I went to him about anything I had questions about. Soon other members of our youth group did. "What does this mean?" "Why isn't this taught?" "What does the bible teach about this?"

He would pray over it, and often he would take our requests and questions as evidence God wanted it taught.

Throughout my life, every minister I have had has done this. That said, it takes me a LONG, long, LONG time to find a church and find a minister I believe in truly trying to do God's work. These king of ministers ARE rare, but they are worth digging for.

[Izdaari]

I offer these experiences not as any final word to prove any mojor point, but to see if any of you out there have thought anything similar/ (By the way, some things in Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis" seem to have resonance)
Do you know, I can honestly say I love the people in my church and would you believe it, as long as I am in their church, I will obey and be submissive.


The difference now, is that thanks to some unique and first-time OPEN-HEARTEDNESS with me from maybe 3 or 4 pastors and leaders, who are out of saddle temporarily, or retired and who shared what had been really happening.
There really is a kind of act going on , where we all obey certain rules. The application of the rules varies from denomination to denomination (oh the arbitrariness of it!!). I've always been told that "we are all men" and sinners, etc but practically (as if these men were the Word of God itself), I accepted everything they said and did as OF GOD. I've spent 20 years trying to harmonise the unharmonisable. And much of the disfunction the world sees in individual Christians is I think caused by the latter's own angst at being unable to harmonise all those teachings and their own experience.
I now accept that I don't have to accept ANY teaching or behaviour example from my leaders. I have the right and I will test it all against the scripture, which is the story of God's dealings with the world and His people.
Maybe a turning piont came when Bishop Tom Wright (there's an intellectual and a theologian for you) said unapologetically that most likely 25% of what he believed and preached now was wrong. I've never heard such a confession from any other preacher - but why not, it's got to be true of 98% of them.

The trouble is that many church leaders don't meet non-Christians and they are isolated by a deluding round of denomination meetings, conferences and introspection and then a cosy world of their own church.

It does seem that the protestant project, if it means treating the Bible as being a book of 'answers' rather than a record of God's dealings with man, is going to end with not just 32000 different Bible-believing denominations but deep frustration and a destroyed witness to the world.


I suppose I just wonder whether each protestant church or minister produces little clones of us all, unless we are careful. Or do we just go to churches that suit or personality? Maybe that goes for the doctrine we choose for ourselves.

Now, I'm NOT complaining about the weakness, failure or shortcomings of anybody here. We are ALL flawed.

What I'm annoyed with is the way we aren't real or family with each other and the world.

If we are not careful, God will be allowed numerous 'Borats' to disrupt our assemblies and humiliate us by mass media showing up our idiocies.

I am sincerely glad that a poster is grateful for his or her church. I hope also by that he or she isn’t just expressing scepticism about the point I’m making.
I’m grateful for my church, that my minister (what a give-away expression that is – surely that precludes the rest of us being ministers, maybe after all bishop is better, which its implications for ‘oversight’), has adopted a very laid-back, weakly-directive, common-denominator preaching/leadership role. I think he has come to where I am, but obviously can’t express these thoughts. As long as there is no great sinful behaviour or outrageous doctrine being flaunted, then he prefers ‘not to hold a mirror into people’s souls’ (Queen El.izabeth’s words)
But as far as a witness to the world is concerned, haven’t you had a thinking person caustically say to you, “And what branch of Christianity do YOU belong to then?”?. No wonder the media can just pick us off by ridicule and caricature.
I am very grateful for my church, and I feel God led me to it. But I also agree with everything you've said in this post. :amen:

And even though I feel God wants me in my present church, that doesn't necessarily mean I think it's right on all points of doctrine. I didn't choose it for that -- there are other churches closer to me on theology.

I read my Bible for myself, and decide for myself how to understand what it says. I also don't think that God is all that concerned if we get all the doctrine right, so long as we get the most important things right.

The most important things as I see it:


Love God with all your heart, soul and strength.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus died for us on the cross, and God raised him from the dead.
Jesus is Lord.Get that stuff right, but get a bunch of other theological stuff wrong, and you'll still be in good with God. :holy:

Btw, I'm a big fan of both Rob Bell and Bishop Wright. :thumbsup:

[MrJim]

I read my Bible for myself, and decide for myself how to understand what it says. I also don't think that God is all that concerned if we get all the doctrine right, so long as we get the most important things right.

The most important things as I see it:


Love God with all your heart, soul and strength.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Jesus died for us on the cross, and God raised him from the dead.
Jesus is Lord.Get that stuff right, but get a bunch of other theological stuff wrong, and you'll still be in good with God. :holy:

Btw, I'm a big fan of both Rob Bell and Bishop Wright. :thumbsup:


I've been operating within those parameters, but still believe that when Jesus said we will worship "in spirit and in truth" that just settling for good intentions may indeed not be enough.

Know neither Bell nor Wright...but I'm learning to know Belloc ;)

[Izdaari]

I've been operating within those parameters, but still believe that when Jesus said we will worship "in spirit and in truth" that just settling for good intentions may indeed not be enough.

Know neither Bell nor Wright...but I'm learning to know Belloc ;)
Aye, I'm not saying everything else is unimportant. Only that those four points are the most crucial, as I see it.

I have yet to read Belloc, but I'll try to work him in.

[MrJim]

Aye, I'm not saying everything else is unimportant. Only that those four points are the most crucial, as I see it.

I have yet to read Belloc, but I'll try to work him in.

I never even heard of the guy before last week:sorry:~I should get out more...

[Koey]

Does anyone else feel this way?...awkward bits of the bible were being filtered away from me...Revelations [sic]...ministers and preachers acting as ‘gatekeepers’ for God’s truth...filterin...And I’ve seen how leaders handle the strong-willed, opinionated member of the congregation who is scratching as he sees it where the church itches...I’ve met many Christians who feel frustrated with their insight being sidelined...“all-member-ministry”...dealings with other leaders...They didn’t get on generally, there was competitiveness...Anybody relate to any of this?
I relate to both sides of this. As an educated theologian, I am often amazed as to how theologically ignorant people think they know more than those with years of training in Greek, Hebrew and excellence in biblical exegesis.

On the other hand, I am equally amazed at the strongholds of doctrine, where a particular view Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox is viewed as more sacred than Scripture.

For Baptists it's their immersion fetish, for Pentecostals it's their tongues addiction, for Catholics it's their praying to Mary or papal "authority" superstition, and for Presbyterians it's their Calvinism dogma.

For me, there is only ONE authority, ONE HEAD of the church, and that is Christ. Calvin, the pope, the pastor and Mary are all honorable individuals, but none is Christ. When I want to find out Christ's opinion, I read the red letters.

In fact I'm so convinced that those red letters are important, that I consider them my creed BEFORE any other creed, in or out of the Bible. I also study them more than any other part of the Bible. I also study them more than any other book on theology, or anything else written before or since.

To make sure that I am understanding Jesus perfectly, I also study commentaries, not just one, but a variety of commentaries from experts in Greek and Hebrew and who have various points of view, and yes, I even study the Catholic commentaries. I am not an anti-Catholic Protestant, just one who believes that ALL churches are faulty, and only Jesus is our Head.

[MrJim]

I relate to both sides of this. As an educated theologian, I am often amazed as to how theologically ignorant people think they know more than those with years of training in Greek, Hebrew and excellence in biblical exegesis.

On the other hand, I am equally amazed at the strongholds of doctrine, where a particular view Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox is viewed as more sacred than Scripture.

For Baptists it's their immersion fetish, for Pentecostals it's their tongues addiction, for Catholics it's their praying to Mary or papal "authority" superstition, and for Presbyterians it's their Calvinism dogma.

For me, there is only ONE authority, ONE HEAD of the church, and that is Christ. Calvin, the pope, the pastor and Mary are all honorable individuals, but none is Christ. When I want to find out Christ's opinion, I read the red letters.

In fact I'm so convinced that those red letters are important, that I consider them my creed BEFORE any other creed, in or out of the Bible. I also study them more than any other part of the Bible. I also study them more than any other book on theology, or anything else written before or since.

To make sure that I am understanding Jesus perfectly, I also study commentaries, not just one, but a variety of commentaries from experts in Greek and Hebrew and who have various points of view, and yes, I even study the Catholic commentaries. I am not an anti-Catholic Protestant, just one who believes that ALL churches are faulty, and only Jesus is our Head.

Most baptists I know do not have an immersion fetish, and I'm sure the rest of the groups can answer in similar manner. You've managed to insult and tear at a huge part of the body of Christ.:doh:

[colinlindsay]

< < < As an educated theologian, I am often amazed as to how theologically ignorant people think they know more than those with years of training in Greek, Hebrew and excellence in biblical exegesis. > >

However, it's clear that those trained as you say DO get it wrong, otherwise there would be uniformity in the Protestant world.

< < Most baptists I know do not have an immersion fetish, and I'm sure the rest of the groups can answer in similar manner. You've managed to insult and tear at a huge part of the body of Christ > >

Sounds a bit like what I was accused of. Actually I wanted most of what I said to be autobiographical, but for this to tie in and resonate with what I think is almost inevitable within protestantism and that is the drive towards schism and division and cults of personality (even within 'moderate' evangelical churches)

It's partly because our churches have no sense of history (maybe some like to be stuck in the 1400s)

As a little demonstration, look how many different streams this board has had to cater for. Most are within protestantism. Far from uniting the body of Christians this board is most effective in causing further friction, like putting scabbling ferrets in one bag! This is true not just of those cross-over threads ("ask a Calvinist")
but of discussions within the streams, which given just half a chance become heated. The human ego seems always stronger than the desire to learn or listen.

[Simon_Templar]

Most baptists I know do not have an immersion fetish, and I'm sure the rest of the groups can answer in similar manner. You've managed to insult and tear at a huge part of the body of Christ.:doh:
I think his point was that various groups tend to define themselves by a single point of doctrine, or a few related ideas and then re-organize everything and redefine everything around that point.

If that wasn't his point then it should have been :)

In my opinion, this is responsible for a lot of the differences and the skewed understandings of different points of doctrine. Most people get raised up in a specific school of thought, essentially they get indoctrinated. This is essentially having a conclusion before you begin looking at the evidence. The result is that you see all the evidence in whatever way is necessary to support your conclusion.

[Koey]

Well there you go. I frankly think that these doctrines that divide are indeed fetishes and non-essentials. Whether it be Marianism, Immersionism, Teetotaling, Plain-Clothes-ism, Black-Car-ism, Transubstantiationism, and a whole host of other areas of bigotry which divide and NONE of which Jesus or his apostles taught.

FETISH? Yes. I am frankly bored with the man-made rules, the silly dogmas and the idiotic know-it-all-isms which have NOTHING to do with the Christianity taught by Jesus.

If I insult my brothers it is to wake them up to what Jesus taught and get them off of the silly religious hobbyisms which neither he nor his apostles emphasized.

[MrJim]

Well there you go. I frankly think that these doctrines that divide are indeed fetishes and non-essentials. Whether it be Marianism, Immersionism, Teetotaling, Plain-Clothes-ism, Black-Car-ism, Transubstantiationism, and a whole host of other areas of bigotry which divide and NONE of which Jesus or his apostles taught.

FETISH? Yes. I am frankly bored with the man-made rules, the silly dogmas and the idiotic know-it-all-isms which have NOTHING to do with the Christianity taught by Jesus.

If I insult my brothers it is to wake them up to what Jesus taught and get them off of the silly religious hobbyisms which neither he nor his apostles emphasized.

Don't you see though, that you are setting yourself up as RIGHT, just as you suppose these other groups believe they are~you present yourself as some kind of Pope~God's man with the answers for all. I'm not seeing much difference.:confused:

[colinlindsay]

If your pastor is a man of God, you can approach him, and discuss these things with him.

My pastor most of my life was the retired president of Southwestern Theological Seminary, and the whole world was using the King James Bible. I was about 13 the first time I went to his office and said, "I don't understand this," and instead of shooing me out of his office, he got out Greek and Hebrew Bibles, charts of time lines, books on tradition, and he taught a bible class to me in his study (yes, his secretary was present so no one accused him of evil.) From that day forward, I went to him about anything I had questions about. Soon other members of our youth group did. "What does this mean?" "Why isn't this taught?" "What does the bible teach about this?"

He would pray over it, and often he would take our requests and questions as evidence God wanted it taught.

Throughout my life, every minister I have had has done this. That said, it takes me a LONG, long, LONG time to find a church and find a minister I believe in truly trying to do God's work. These king of ministers ARE rare, but they are worth digging for.
I know that you feel reassured by this man.
But this doesn't answer my problem. How do you know that this man's detailed exposition is the right one, certainly as regards any issue which is controversial and has divided Christians.
I remember the Orthodox jibe about "side-whiskered Anglo-Saxons" from Backwoods, Minnesota Bible College with a degree in Romanophobia, coming up with definitive bible-answers about controversies which taxed the church since its inception and which should have been allowed to rest as mysteries. (for example, the sublime do we have free-will and what is the nature of the Trinity? to the ridiculous should Christians dance or the contemporary should we be involved in Green issues?)
I've been around long enough to know that even those intellectual/theological giants I respected for so long (John Stott or Martyn Lloyd Jones) will have feet of clay and get it seriously wrong over one issue or enother.

[Simon_Templar]

I know that you feel reassured by this man.
But this doesn't answer my problem. How do you know that this man's detailed exposition is the right one, certainly as regards any issue which is controversial and has divided Christians.
I remember the Orthodox jibe about "side-whiskered Anglo-Saxons" from Backwoods, Minnesota Bible College with a degree in Romanophobia, coming up with definitive bible-answers about controversies which taxed the church since its inception and which should have been allowed to rest as mysteries. (for example, the sublime do we have free-will and what is the nature of the Trinity? to the ridiculous should Christians dance or the contemporary should we be involved in Green issues?)
I've been around long enough to know that even those intellectual/theological giants I respected for so long (John Stott or Martyn Lloyd Jones) will have feet of clay and get it seriously wrong over one issue or enother.
There are some things that no person is going to be completely lay out in depth and exhaustively. Things like the trinity, the nature of free-will in regards to God's sovereignty, and so on. The simply involve numerous things that we do not and probably can not currently know.

That doesn't mean that ALL issues are that way.

[colinlindsay]

Don't you see though, that you are setting yourself up as RIGHT, just as you suppose these other groups believe they are~you present yourself as some kind of Pope~God's man with the answers for all. I'm not seeing much difference.:confused:
Koey does have a problem here.

Who decides what is a central or peripheral doctrine?
Is it safe for an individual to decide, whether or not he has armed himself with a whole plethora of concordances and commentaries? Maybe not safe but safer than emotionally trusting 100% in the opinions of one or denomination as the Word of God itself.

However, although fetish is a strong word, it is apt as it implies self-indulgence and naval-gazing, while Christ demands the search for unity.

I wonder whether Koey would like to explore the fetishes indulged in by the Calvinists on their board?

[Albion]

Well there you go. I frankly think that these doctrines that divide are indeed fetishes and non-essentials. Whether it be Marianism, Immersionism, Teetotaling, Plain-Clothes-ism, Black-Car-ism, Transubstantiationism, and a whole host of other areas of bigotry which divide and NONE of which Jesus or his apostles taught.

FETISH? Yes. I am frankly bored with the man-made rules, the silly dogmas and the idiotic know-it-all-isms which have NOTHING to do with the Christianity taught by Jesus.

If I insult my brothers it is to wake them up to what Jesus taught and get them off of the silly religious hobbyisms which neither he nor his apostles emphasized.

I think there's a lot of truth to what you've said here, and the immediate rejection of it that came in response is way way off the mark IMO.

The point is that we do often lose the essentials among the non-essentials. The argument for traditions, catechisms, counciliar proclamations, papal decrees, and so on is made by those who suppose that we are expected by God to know everything here and now--and require it of everyone in the church as well.

Well, no. We read in the Gospel of John that everything that Jesus did and said is not there...but what? Answer: But everything that is necessary for us to know the point of the Gospel and be saved because of it IS there.

All the arguing about this non-essential doctrine or that non-essential doctrine--and especially the notion that without some certain gifted interpreter of scripture, no one can know what it means--is nonsense.

No one with a grade school education can miss the point of the Gospels, even if he never decides exactly all the nuances relating to baptism, the church's government, what the afterlife is exactly like, and such secondary matters.

[MrJim]

I think there's a lot of truth to what you've said here, and the immediate rejection of it that came in response is way way off the mark IMO.

The point is that we do often lose the essentials among the non-essentials. The argument for traditions, catechisms, counciliar proclamations, papal decrees, and so on is made by those who suppose that we are expected by God to know everything here and now--and require it of everyone in the church as well.

Well, no. We read in the Gospel of John that everything that Jesus did and said is not there...but what? Answer: But everything that is necessary for us to know the point of the Gospel and be saved because of it IS there.

All the arguing about this non-essential doctrine or that non-essential doctrine--and especially the notion that without some certain gifted interpreter of scripture, no one can know what it means--is nonsense.

No one with a grade school education can miss the point of the Gospels, even if he never decides exactly all the nuances relating to baptism, the church's government, what the afterlife is exactly like, and such secondary matters.

I disagree in that who is going to decide what the "essentials" are?

Points koey makes sound nice, but scratch the surface a bit and you'll probably find that there's a hobby horse ridden there~

Albion~are you willing to let someone else decide the "essentials" for you? This forum is filled with grade school educated people but still it appears the "point" gets missed.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I relate to both sides of this. As an educated theologian, I am often amazed as to how theologically ignorant people think they know more than those with years of training in Greek, Hebrew and excellence in biblical exegesis.

[COLOR=green]On the other hand, I am equally amazed at the strongholds of doctrine, where a particular view Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox is viewed as more sacred than Scripture.

It's also interesting that people who claim to have an education also think they have more knowledge than those that don't. The reality is, how much of their supposed education was objective?

Pretty much any seminary you go to is going to study only theology and present it from a particular viewpoint. What is interesting is when one goes to such a school, is thought how to view scripture from a particular way and interpret Greek and Hebrew in a particular way and suddenly they're an expert that isn't influenced by anything- they have a right, objective view of scripture.

Finally, having a theology degree from who-knows-where doesn't make one a theologian.

[MrJim]

It's also interesting that people who claim to have an education also think they have more knowledge than those that don't. The reality is, how much of their supposed education was objective?

Pretty much any seminary you go to is going to study only theology and present it from a particular viewpoint. What is interesting is when one goes to such a school, is thought how to view scripture from a particular way and interpret Greek and Hebrew in a particular way and suddenly they're an expert that isn't influenced by anything- they have a right, objective view of scripture.

Finally, having a theology degree from who-knows-where doesn't make one a theologian.
...and it doesn't qualify one to be a pastor either...

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Well, no. We read in the Gospel of John that everything that Jesus did and said is not there...but what? Answer: But everything that is necessary for us to know the point of the Gospel and be saved because of it IS there.[/SIZE]

That's a baseless assumption. It is just a necessary belief when you believe in sola scriptura.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Well there you go. I frankly think that these doctrines that divide are indeed fetishes and non-essentials. Whether it be Marianism, Immersionism, Teetotaling, Plain-Clothes-ism, Black-Car-ism, Transubstantiationism, and a whole host of other areas of bigotry which divide and NONE of which Jesus or his apostles taught.

FETISH? Yes. I am frankly bored with the man-made rules, the silly dogmas and the idiotic know-it-all-isms which have NOTHING to do with the Christianity taught by Jesus.

This only makes sense if you believe Jesus was a new-age spiritualist who believe in moral relativism.

If you believe in objective truth, then you are going to believe in right and wrong. It's not bigotry or divisive... it is simply an issue of truth. Ecumenicalism is not more important than the truth.

Christians can engage in moral relativism and say that everything is just opinions and nothing matter except Jesus. Or, we can understand that Jesus is the truth, an objective truth which requires honest seeking and true faith- a faith in the rightness of our beliefs.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Well, what IS it that we've done wrong over the centuries?

What is it that we have pursued as believers but which has caused all our division, in opposition to the command of Christ.

It's because we've not understood or found too difficult I Corinthians 13. We don't believe in fact that Love conquers all.

We believe having the correct creed, down to fine detail, brings unity.

I think experience and hisrory has proved that wrong.

Moral relativism and this notion that we'll all believe in whatever we want- and no one will say anyone is wrong, or say where we are wrong, it doesn't matter--- is not being one body of Christians. It's individualism and faithlessness.

We are to be of one mind, and one body. Even Paul had to address the Christian heretics that were emerging, even within the first generation. We weren't told to embrace them because they believe in Jesus too- and that maybe we should be open to their beliefs because to do otherwise is divisive.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

:wave: I can relate to this too...
I used to be evangelical and went to a good church, I really liked it there..but now I see that some parts of the Bible were in fact filtered out, because they didn't fit the "evangelical Protestant understanding of Christianity". My church wasn't very bad at all...we had a really good pastor, and his sermons were challenging and not watered down. But I see in the Bible ideas that were never talked about, even though they are pretty important... when I read about the early church, I saw beliefs that evangelical Protestantism rejects, such as the real presence in Communion. Christians believed this as early 150 AD, which suggests that's what the Apostles taught too...and it was believed by all Christians until Zwingli came along. After that, I realized that I couldn't stay. I had great experiences in that church and it brought me closer to God... but I realized that even though the pastor was really trying to give us the right teaching, and succeeding on many levels, there were some serious flaws... when compared to what Christians have believed in the beginning..

The way I see it, the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant...but the reason I disagree with sola scriptura is because it doesn't interpret itself. I really tried to believe that it does, but couldn't figure out why there are so many different interpretations out there...all claimed to be "from the Holy Spirit".. the way I believe it now, is that "traditional" Christian churches have held on to the historical interpretation of Scripture from the Apostles...and the Holy Spirit convicts people of this interpretation so that they are able to believe it on a personal level...and have it change their lives.. the Church, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible: all go together...and evangelical "Bible only" Protestantism separates them for some reason...

And look at what goes on with 'communion' nowadays... I don't just mean theologically.

At first, Christians from one city or region would all get together in one place to celebrate and have communion. When there was a lot of Christians, you'd go to the house nearest you. Finally, Christianity was allowed to go public and you'd go to the church or basilica nearest you.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

:wave: I can relate to this too...
I used to be evangelical and went to a good church, I really liked it there..but now I see that some parts of the Bible were in fact filtered out, because they didn't fit the "evangelical Protestant understanding of Christianity". My church wasn't very bad at all...we had a really good pastor, and his sermons were challenging and not watered down. But I see in the Bible ideas that were never talked about, even though they are pretty important... when I read about the early church, I saw beliefs that evangelical Protestantism rejects, such as the real presence in Communion. Christians believed this as early 150 AD, which suggests that's what the Apostles taught too...and it was believed by all Christians until Zwingli came along. After that, I realized that I couldn't stay. I had great experiences in that church and it brought me closer to God... but I realized that even though the pastor was really trying to give us the right teaching, and succeeding on many levels, there were some serious flaws... when compared to what Christians have believed in the beginning..

The way I see it, the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant...but the reason I disagree with sola scriptura is because it doesn't interpret itself. I really tried to believe that it does, but couldn't figure out why there are so many different interpretations out there...all claimed to be "from the Holy Spirit".. the way I believe it now, is that "traditional" Christian churches have held on to the historical interpretation of Scripture from the Apostles...and the Holy Spirit convicts people of this interpretation so that they are able to believe it on a personal level...and have it change their lives.. the Church, the Holy Spirit, and the Bible: all go together...and evangelical "Bible only" Protestantism separates them for some reason...

And look at what goes on with 'communion' nowadays... I don't just mean theologically.

At first, Christians from one city or region would all get together in one place to celebrate and have communion. When there was a lot of Christians, you'd go to the house nearest you. Finally, Christianity was allowed to go public and you'd go to the church or basilica nearest you.

Even early in the reformation (which was the cause of individualism in modern Christianity)... everyone in town was Lutheran, Catholic, Calvinist, etc.

Your neighborhood or town might have on Catholic and one Lutheran Church... but the point was, everyone in that neighborhood went to their neighborhood church. All the Lutherans on the east side went to eastside Lutheran.

Now look what we have... churches everywhere of every possible flavor and type. You don't like the pastor- go to another church. You don't like the people- go to another church. You simply find a 'community' that YOU like.

You aren't a body of Christ- you are just a bunch of individuals that have similar interests in a church. You choose your family. You have no relationship with the other people other than your own tastes.

[Albion]

I disagree in that who is going to decide what the "essentials" are?

I suppose that sounds persuasive to you, but it only sounds good in theory. While there is obviously going to be some range of opinion on what constitutes an essential, which I did not dismiss, the range is hardly everything from A to Z. For instance, I know of no one who thinks that the essentials include what age a person is admitted to communion or whether grape juice or wine is used or, for that matter, whether or not the Apocrypha is considered scripture--not even by those who DO use it.

The basic story of Jesus' ministry is rather clear cut in scripture, constantly reiterated emphasized. Therefore, the range that we are really talking about her is rather narrow.

Albion~are you willing to let someone else decide the "essentials" for you?

Sure. I'll let God do that...which is exactly what scripture is all about.

But I'll put it to you just as I've put it to all those who in the past have argued that everything the Church has decided upon is true. How much of it do you really think is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION?

[Albion]

That's a baseless assumption. It is just a necessary belief when you believe in sola scriptura.

First off, it's not baseless.

Scripture is the base for all of Christian thought.

Secondly, we're not talking about Buddhism here, you know. Believing in the Bible is hardly a strange idea when it is the only thing that defines our religion (even among those who say that human speculation should count equally with the Bible)
:sigh:

[Koey]

Do we let a bishop, pope, prophet or other great spiritual leader define for us what the essentials are? What foolishness! Our religion is Christianity, not popism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, Thomism, Augusinianism, or some other ism. It is the religion of Christ first and foremost.

Does Jesus then define what is essential? Perhaps not in those words, but he did instruct his disciples, the apostles, to teach what he taught them (Matthew 28:19-20). Now it seems to me that would be more essential than teaching about prayers to Mary, transubstantiation or consubstantiation, collecting the bones of dead saints, Saturday or Sunday Sabbatarianism, immersionism, teetotaling, driving black cars, or any other non-essential that has come along since Christ and his teachings.

I care neither for modern fads nor ancient traditions. Give me Christ and his teachings! Then give me the rest of the Bible. That is the essential thing. Everything else is dung!

[MrJim]

I suppose that sounds persuasive to you, but it only sounds good in theory. While there is obviously going to be some range of opinion on what constitutes an essential, which I did not dismiss, the range is hardly everything from A to Z. For instance, I know of no one who thinks that the essentials include what age a person is admitted to communion or whether grape juice or wine is used or, for that matter, whether or not the Apocrypha is considered scripture--not even by those who DO use it.

The basic story of Jesus' ministry is rather clear cut in scripture, constantly reiterated emphasized. Therefore, the range that we are really talking about her is rather narrow.



Sure. I'll let God do that...which is exactly what scripture is all about.

But I'll put it to you just as I've put it to all those who in the past have argued that everything the Church has decided upon is true. How much of it do you really think is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION?

How is it an individual call to decide this "essential" list? For that is what it is coming down to~isn't the church here for this reason?

If all that is needed is to follow "all who call upon the Lord will be saved", why pass 4 or 20 churches on Sunday morning to go to "ours"? If all that is needed is "that whosoever believes will not perish but have everlasting life" then why bother with such an ancient and archaic institution as the Anglican church and just meet at the nearest assembly hall or even in your living room with other christian neighbors...hmmm, maybe that would be better ;)

[Albion]

What I wrote was that Koey had a good point when he said that "he did instruct his disciples, the apostles, to teach what he taught them (Matthew 28:19-20). Now it seems to me that would be more essential than teaching about prayers to Mary, transubstantiation or consubstantiation, collecting the bones of dead saints, Saturday or Sunday Sabbatarianism, immersionism, teetotaling, driving black cars, or any other non-essential that has come along since Christ and his teachings."


In principle, Koey was right. We can nit pick it to death and squabble over whose list of non-essentials should not be forgotten, or we can admit the obvious--he made a basically very sound observation.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

First off, it's not baseless.

Scripture is the base for all of Christian thought.

Secondly, we're not talking about Buddhism here, you know. Believing in the Bible is hardly a strange idea when it is the only thing that defines our religion (even among those who say that human speculation should count equally with the Bible)
:sigh:


Christians were thinking, teaching and following long before the Gospels were written.. or Paul ever wrote an epistle. It doesn't define our faith because our faith existed before anything about Christ was written in the NT.

Christ told his apostles to teach- He didn't tell us to follow the scriptures. People have taken a product of the Church and held it over the authority of the Church itself.

Human speculation isn't held equally by any group of Christianity that I know. Some, including myself, hold scripture co-equal with the authority of the Church- because that authority is Christ's and that authority is protected and taught by the power of the Holy Spirit.

When you reject the authority of the Church and go by only your interpretation of the bible- how are you not rejecting the authority established by Christ and putting your own over it?

[ReformedChapin]

Within orthodox groups the essential seem pretty clear. The trinity, the divinity of Christ, the substitionary atonnement.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

[COLOR=green]Do we let a bishop, pope, prophet or other great spiritual leader define for us what the essentials are?

I'm sorry- do you reject the bible? Was it not written by prophets and apostles? Maybe you just listen to the apostles, because they are dead and you can make their words mean anything you want.

I belong to a living Church- one established by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit. I belong to a Church that needed countless letters (epistles) written to regions because the people had no clue what they were doing and going off track.

What audacity it must take to think that somehow, we don't need direction and care like they did. Or that the power of the Holy Spirit and the authority is limited to 12 apostles.

Enjoy your 'church' whose communion is based on individual preference... and a unity held by moral relativism. Call us divisive, or our beliefs non-essential. We believe in something real and objective. There is no 'essential' and 'non-essential' belief. All of truth is Christ. You can not portion out Christ.

[ReformedChapin]

I'm sorry- do you reject the bible? Was it not written by prophets and apostles? Maybe you just listen to the apostles, because they are dead and you can make their words mean anything you want.

I belong to a living Church- one established by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit. I belong to a Church that needed countless letters (epistles) written to regions because the people had no clue what they were doing and going off track.

What audacity it must take to think that somehow, we don't need direction and care like they did. Or that the power of the Holy Spirit and the authority is limited to 12 apostles.

Enjoy your 'church' whose communion is based on individual preference... and a unity held by moral relativism. Call us divisive, or our beliefs non-essential. We believe in something real and objective. There is no 'essential' and 'non-essential' belief. All of truth is Christ. You can not portion out Christ.
So what you are saying is that there is no division in the body of Christ? Even within the regenerate? Riiight.

[MrJim]

I'm sorry- do you reject the bible? Was it not written by prophets and apostles? Maybe you just listen to the apostles, because they are dead and you can make their words mean anything you want.

I belong to a living Church- one established by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit. I belong to a Church that needed countless letters (epistles) written to regions because the people had no clue what they were doing and going off track.

What audacity it must take to think that somehow, we don't need direction and care like they did. Or that the power of the Holy Spirit and the authority is limited to 12 apostles.

Enjoy your 'church' whose communion is based on individual preference... and a unity held by moral relativism. Call us divisive, or our beliefs non-essential. We believe in something real and objective. There is no 'essential' and 'non-essential' belief. All of truth is Christ. You can not portion out Christ.

What he says makes so much sense...why does it have to be this "every man for himself"? Then, what basis does anyone have to say something is true or not when we are deciding what is "essential". Is baptism then not essential? Is there a eucharist~does it matter if there is presence? I know that's a big essential amongst the apostolics~Albion, would be satisfied to receive communion baptist style~memorial ordinance? Maybe just not receive communion, maybe it's not essential?

:cool: Discussions that make me think are good:thumbsup:

[MrJim]

Within orthodox groups the essential seem pretty clear. The trinity, the divinity of Christ, the substitionary atonnement.

Is that sufficient? Is that enough for you? Are you willing ~not renounce~ but to lay aside calvinist theology and simply work from these three essentials?

Discussion seems to be all about minimalism (geez, another "ism" ;) )

[ReformedChapin]

Is that sufficient? Is that enough for you? Are you willing ~not renounce~ but to lay aside calvinist theology and simply work from these three essentials?

Discussion seems to be all about minimalism (geez, another "ism" ;) )
If you are asking me that non-calvinist are saved, then yes I fully attest to that.

Am I willing to give up the views which I percieve to the the heart of Gospel? Nope. I never stated that, those three essentials are what shows a regenerate a believer but being saved doesn't imply perfect theology. ;)

[TexasSky]

Does anyone else feel this way?

Maybe I’ll find that many of you on the boards feel the same way about evangelicalism.

I’ve been a protestant evangelical mostly fundamental but also charismatic for 30 years. However my first exposure was Calvinistic Presbyterianism. I didn’t know it at the time but awkward bits of the bible were being filtered away from me. For example , as a result of pressure from the congregation the minister finally relented and preached on Revelations, but I didn’t understand at the time why he stopped after the letters to the 7 churches. Looking back it was my first encounter with ministers and preachers acting as ‘gatekeepers’ for God’s truth. I believe that has happened throughout my times in evangelical churches. So that’s my main gripe.

When I was converted I was given a Macarthur’s study Bible. The layreader told me to use the notes extensively so that I would understand what I was reading. More filtering….

Then I went to the only evangelical church around in my new town. It was respectably charismatic. I had to receive the Word filtered through another minister and his favoured preachers and books, the previous one never having touched on charismatic issues. All these experts were concerned that I don’t fall into error. And all of them disagreeing. Paul and Apollo etc etc…


I’ve heard hours and hours of preaching and just recently realised that the preachers have disagreed!. I’ve spent all that time thinking that any confusion I was receiving was MY fault. I had to try harder to harmonise what I was receiving.


I’ve realised also that the pulpit is the icon of authority for the evangelical. It is guarded jealously not normally as it turned out against outright heresy but against perfectly capable preachers in the congregation, who could start confusing and splitting the church. More filtering of God’s truth for the scripturally immature. It is a protestant version of the priest mediating for the laity. In fact I’ve even heard it justified, on the basis that we believe in Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura. Very subtle and rather revealing if not dangerous.


And I’ve seen how leaders handle the strong-willed, opinionated member of the congregation who is scratching as he sees it where the church itches. No matter that his exegesis is as reasonable as the leadership line, he is marginalised. This has happened with awkward prophets.

You know, in all of this I have sympathy with the minister. Those churches that seem to grow are led by a one-man band, whether it’s reformed or Anglican or charismatic.

I’ve realised that what’s been going on is the giving of lip-service to “Sola Scriptura” – each man capable of receiving God’s revelation through the Bible, but in fact we have a version of mini-multi-popery in each church.

I’ve met many Christians who feel frustrated with their insight being sidelined and they join internet-churches. But all they are doing is finding their own Apollos, teachers to scratch their itching ears.

I believe this happens because we have such a low view of church and a high view of propositional truth and a doctrinal box-ticking attitude towards acceptability. We mouth platitudes about “all-member-ministry” but we don’t know how to handle the boat-rocking when we give full-rein to this.
I seem to have been immersed, almost drowning, in a sea of talk and pontification and exposition and prophetic vision. (I remember this was Ghandi’s criticism of Christians). I remember paradigm after paradigm of the Biblical way to do "church" or "evangelism" or "ministry" or "leadership". I don't want to hear another.

I’ve been blessed by having a retreat time with a pastor, deeply respected in our area throughout the evangelical churches. Now he is retired he was able to share insights of his dealings with other leaders. They didn’t get on generally, there was competitiveness and mask-wearing. He thought this would inevitably be normative. I think it’s because of the nature of protestantism, driven practically by personality and individualism. Just look at how many personality-driven “ministries” there are.

Anybody relate to any of this?
Well, I avoid the kinds of ministers and churches you are talking about, but I do think they are in the majority.

When becoming a minister became a profitable business, the ministery became full of false teachers.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

So what you are saying is that there is no division in the body of Christ? Even within the regenerate? Riiight.

Anyone that is baptized is part of the body of Christ.

Anyone that reads the NT sees that division came up very early on. How did the Church address it? Did they simply say "I'm okay, you're okay" and engage in moral relativism? Or did the apostles write letters and straight them out?

Can you imagine the Church of Corinth (consider reading the epistle again)... set up the same way as modern churches? No authority, no objective truth... where everyone gets along because to say that people were 'wrong' was divisive?

The devil is constantly throwing heresy at the Church. What are you going to fight him with, the bible understood according to human reason? He lies to Christians... convincing them to listen to their own will and not God's.

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Well, I avoid the kinds of ministers and churches you are talking about, but I do think they are in the majority.

When becoming a minister became a profitable business, the ministery became full of false teachers.

You don't need to be profitable to teach heresy.

[ReformedChapin]

Anyone that is baptized is part of the body of Christ.

Anyone that reads the NT sees that division came up very early on. How did the Church address it? Did they simply say "I'm okay, you're okay" and engage in moral relativism? Or did the apostles write letters and straight them out?
They addressed it dealing with the essentials. Look at Romans 14 when the Romans were fighting over eating food sacreficied to idols. What did Paul do?

4:19 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=14&verse=19) So then, let us pursue what makes for peace and for building up one another. 14:20 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=14&verse=20) Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. For although all things are clean, 16 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=14#n16) it is wrong to cause anyone to stumble by what you eat. 14:21 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=14&verse=21) It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 17 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=14#n17) 14:22 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=14&verse=22) The faith 18 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=14#n18) you have, keep to yourself before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge himself by what he approves. 14:23 (http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Rom&chapter=14&verse=23) But the man who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not do so from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin. 19 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Rom&chapter=14#n19)



Can you imagine the Church of Corinth (consider reading the epistle again)... set up the same way as modern churches? No authority, no objective truth... where everyone gets along because to say that people were 'wrong' was divisive? Look, I am all with you against moral relativism. However, that being said, we must consider that there is some moral variation. God isn't a legalistic God, he gave us variation and not everything is black and white. Again, that doesn't imply we should go postmodern and say that ethics are relative.

The devil is constantly throwing heresy at the Church. What are you going to fight him with, the bible understood according to human reason? He lies to Christians... convincing them to listen to their own will and not God's. The devil does God's bidding. I percieve scripture by good hermenuetics as guided by the spirit, that however doesn't imply that my sinful nature doesn't creep in and I don't make a mistake like everyone else.

[TexasSky]

I left protestantism for similiar reasons. Before I became Catholic I realized how easy it was for me to make the bible say whatever I wanted. I go to one pastor and get one answer or to another, until I got the one I wanted. In the end, there was never any certainty and there was no real basis for my faith. The basis for myself was whatever I wanted.
Now, this I have a problem with.

God promises us in His word that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be filled.

Those who hunger and thirst after rightousness study and pray and seek and pray and read their bible and pray.

In dealing with Christians, I find "those who know their bible very well," as in they not only read it from cover to cover, b