The current Church former Pharisees?

[servant4ever]

I do think the current state of the Christian Church is nearly equal to the way the Pharisees were back in the time of Jesus (waiting for the gasps to stop). Before you go and post replies and saying I'm a heretic and stuff like that, please listen to what I have to say. Jesus says we are to love God and neighbor equally. The Pharisees were 100% legalistic where they forgot about the love that we are supposed to have. All they cared about was looking perfect and that they can't be honest in front of other people. The Pharisees were more concerned about "loving God" rather than loving the homeless, the "sinners." The Pharisees only wanted to "hang out" with people JUST LIKE THEM and they called the people that were not like them as horrible people. The Pharisees only cared about what they looked like to other people, about being "perfect." They had attention brought to them when they gave money in the offering; they prayed great "holier than thou" prayers and not be honest in their prayers. They cared about the "perfect doctrine" and if anyone else disagreed with them, they were "heretics."

Does this sound familiar to the Christian church today? I 100% think so. Jesus says the greatest Commandment is to Love God AND neighbor. We seem to forget to "love our neighbor" part of the Greatest Commandment. Why don't we? Because we are too caught up into legalism. Yes, legalism. All we Christians care about is being "perfect" and having the perfect prayer in church. You know what that is? It is nothing. 1 Corinthians says if we do great things but not in love, we are nothing. We need to be honest with each other AND God. Why should we care about what other people think? WE should only care about what God thinks. Let me share one Bible passage with you. Luke 18:10-14 (NIV):
10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[1] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

The person that had the "perfect" prayer was looked down upon by God. The person that had the "bad" prayer was looked highly up by God. Do you want to be looked highly by people or God? If you truly want to be looked highly by God, please stop the legalism and just care about LOVING God and not by focusing on works. If we focus on works, then we focus on works to be a Christian, not love. Remember, we are not saved by works, but by grace. Why should we expect people to get cleaned up (works) to come to church? Why should we expect people to be perfect? How about we start being honest with God and others. Let's be the church that God created US to be. If we stop the legalism, I think a LOT more people will find freedom in Christ.

I better stop before people get too upset with me. All in All, I think Christianity in the whole is getting too legalistic and we need to stop.

servant4ever

[James1979]

I agree with you servant4ever. It's just like the days of the Pharisees. Especially with all these doctrines we have in different denomations. There is only one truth. God sure didn't talk 5, 10, etc truth outside of his mouth.

James

[riverpastor]

When you read about Jesus ripping the Pharisees, you'll notice that a lot of the church world is like this today.

Why the focus on legalism? Because we really don't:
1) understand Grace, and/or
2) we really don't believe that God is able to change folks all by Himself.

I would say both. For the most part, what I have been a part of and witness to, leadership in church (and those who support them) do not preach and teach "righteous consciousness". Generally, there is more of a focus on "sin consciousness". What is preached from the pulpit is what will be manifested in the pews.

So, if a preacher spends all his time preaching on sin (even if he's preaching against it) what is he bringing up in the forefront of the minds of the congregation? That's right: sin!

And so the congregation leaves the church house with sin on the mind. "That was some good preaching," they say. "He really scorched our hides today. And we sure need it. Uh, huh! Amen! We are sorry no good dogs. We are sinners."

Well, throughout the rest of the week, they struggle with sin because that is what the preacher is renewing their mind to, instead of assisting and leading others into Truth consciousness: that we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus!

So when they get back to church, their own condemnation coupled with a sense of failure and the preacher, of course, who is "right" now because his messages prove that his people are having problems with sin, once again, preaches on sin. And so we have a vicious cycle that's been started.

So in order to get the people to line up: legalism. Forms of doctrines that attempt to make the Word of God and the Love of God at the disposal of following the legalistic rules of the church.

I've heard preachers tell their congregation members, "If you leave this church, you will know longer be under the protective covering of God." I heard one preacher even tell a man that if he left that church, that God would "take his life".

So, I'm with you S4E. I think we should rise up and cast out the damnable doctrine that puts a heavy yoke and burden on the necks of men.

[New_Wineskin]

Good post , river .

When you read about Jesus ripping the Pharisees, you'll notice that a lot of the church world is like this today.
Today ? Historically , I can't see a time when the church world wasn't like this in one way or the other . I consider that it is getting better instead of worse , though . I am hearing and reading of more and more people who are escaping from this mindset .

[servant4ever]

I can think of a time the Church was like this. The first church with Peter and Paul and those people. Actually, believe it or not, but the whole church actually agreed with each other ONE TIME! :) Here is the verse: Acts 6:5, which says "This proposal pleased the WHOLE GROUP." (NIV) AMAZING, isn't it? :)

But, yeah, I do see what you mean. The church hasn't acted like the Church is supposed to be. Remember when Jesus says that the world will know we are His disciples by our love? Where did that go? I will submit that legalism is NOT love. If we are focusing on ourselves to be "perfect" and not on others needs, then it is not love.

Riverpastor, do you say that we just need to focus on who we are in Christ to get rid of legalism?

servant4ever

[LucifersGoat]

Hey you bunch of dumb**** X-tians! How's life? still praising that divine being that doesn't exist? I was just wondering how you can continue to go through life thinking there really is a "God", It is not possible to contact this "god" and there's no way to prove this "god" is real. So my question is? Why praise him? Is it benefiting you? Do you like to be prevented from masturbating? Do you like the fact that your religion spawned the KKK, and is the source of so much prejudice, such as it's a sin to be gay and if you don't praise you'll burn with the one angel named Lucifer that was banished by God for having his own opinion? Well I'll leave that in your mind you bunch of retarded hicks, vote Kerry for all our sakes and for the poor oil ridden 3rd world countries out there. =)

P.S. Here's a little tid bit for all you ladies out there, if you were to unmarrie (divorce) your husband, you may never marry again unless you reconcile with your former husband, most of you are sinners. Straight from the book of BS.

[Harry the Heretic]

I believe in 4 commandments that define a Christian

Baptism
The Lord's supper
Love your neigbor as yourself
Love God with all of your heart

Do the first 2 make me a legalist?

[New_Wineskin]

I believe in 4 commandments that define a Christian

Baptism
The Lord's supper
Love your neigbor as yourself
Love God with all of your heart

Do the first 2 make me a legalist?That would depend on whether or not you consider that the first two are required for others to be Christians , how you define those commands , and why you consider that others are required to observe them . ( I am assuming that you are writing about "water" baptism ) .

May I ask why you did not include the other "love" "command" ? I rarely see people include all three of them .

[servant4ever]

Can I ask why I can't see post #6 on the thread? What I see it goes from my post to Harry's.

Harry -- Just depends is you are saying EVERY Christian should do that or they aren't a Christian. All that it matters for a Christian is to believe in Jesus' death and resurrection and to confess their sins.

EDIT: In other words, if you just focus on baptism and the Lord's Supper instead of Jesus, it becomes legalism.

servant4ever

[DanielRB]

Hi Servant,

I don't think you're a heretic for your OP. The Church often needs to be reminded of how easy it is to fall into the trap of Phariseeism. We need to continually turn to the Gospels to see how our Lord Jesus Christ lived, what He said, what He did to understand how to apply it to our own lives--not just to the lives of some Pharisees 2,000 years ago who are long dust. That's why Jesus warned us to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Matt 16:6, Mark 8:15, Luke 12:1). Every morning, we have to let the Holy Spirit speak to us to root out this evil--yes, legalism is evil.

In Christ,

Daniel

[duh_hikki_zealot]

I do think the current state of the Christian Church is nearly equal to the way the Pharisees were back in the time of Jesus (waiting for the gasps to stop). Before you go and post replies and saying I'm a heretic and stuff like that, please listen to what I have to say. Jesus says we are to love God and neighbor equally. The Pharisees were 100% legalistic where they forgot about the love that we are supposed to have. All they cared about was looking perfect and that they can't be honest in front of other people. The Pharisees were more concerned about "loving God" rather than loving the homeless, the "sinners." The Pharisees only wanted to "hang out" with people JUST LIKE THEM and they called the people that were not like them as horrible people. The Pharisees only cared about what they looked like to other people, about being "perfect." They had attention brought to them when they gave money in the offering; they prayed great "holier than thou" prayers and not be honest in their prayers. They cared about the "perfect doctrine" and if anyone else disagreed with them, they were "heretics."

Does this sound familiar to the Christian church today? I 100% think so. Jesus says the greatest Commandment is to Love God AND neighbor. We seem to forget to "love our neighbor" part of the Greatest Commandment. Why don't we? Because we are too caught up into legalism. Yes, legalism. All we Christians care about is being "perfect" and having the perfect prayer in church. You know what that is? It is nothing. 1 Corinthians says if we do great things but not in love, we are nothing. We need to be honest with each other AND God. Why should we care about what other people think? WE should only care about what God thinks. Let me share one Bible passage with you. Luke 18:10-14 (NIV):
10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[1] himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

The person that had the "perfect" prayer was looked down upon by God. The person that had the "bad" prayer was looked highly up by God. Do you want to be looked highly by people or God? If you truly want to be looked highly by God, please stop the legalism and just care about LOVING God and not by focusing on works. If we focus on works, then we focus on works to be a Christian, not love. Remember, we are not saved by works, but by grace. Why should we expect people to get cleaned up (works) to come to church? Why should we expect people to be perfect? How about we start being honest with God and others. Let's be the church that God created US to be. If we stop the legalism, I think a LOT more people will find freedom in Christ.

I better stop before people get too upset with me. All in All, I think Christianity in the whole is getting too legalistic and we need to stop.

servant4ever
I see your point... Church nowadays seem so routinary... o_O It's dead...

We need revival.

[Harry the Heretic]

That would depend on whether or not you consider that the first two are required for others to be Christians , how you define those commands , and why you consider that others are required to observe them . ( I am assuming that you are writing about "water" baptism) .

May I ask why you did not include the other "love" "command" ? I rarely see people include all three of them .
If you mean by the 3rd "love" command, love your enemies, that is included in to love your neighbor. I think that is the context that John is thinking of in his 1st epistle.

I would include baptism and the Lord's supper because our Lord asked us to do them, he instituted the supper and was baptized himself to fulfill all righteousness. He is the author and finisher of faith. (Heb 12:2)

I do not care if you think baptism is for regeneration, entry into the body independant of salvation, a confirmation of faith, etc. and likewise for communion, if it's transubstantiation, cosubstantiation, a memorial, or a love feast;

They are not of man, they are from the Lord.

Certainly Israel did not understand the scope of their baptism, or their passover. In like manner I also observe these things. I do them in faith, as the Lord asks of me, Not questioning his wisdom.

I do not find them to be a burden. I walk by faith, and leave salvation to Christ.

Yes I think that all Christians should do these two things, why would we not?

I believe Servant made some valid points, but what I find ironic in the body, is that the commands which are designed to unite us, two of these, the Lord's supper and baptism have become a point of division. When we leave faith behind, and justify a stance, one way or the other, we are no longer living by faith, but by our own understanding.

Peace to you

[newname]

God commands us to be "perfect" "be ye perfect as i am perfect"

One must study this word though to see what he really means.

"perfect" meaning "complete"

We cannot truly love our neighbor until we are "complete"

If we are trying to love our neighbor with the love other than God's "charity" love then we are doing 'works" that are not of God.

ONLY God can give His love to us and only then can we be loving and doing works of "righteousness"

THE WORLD talks of love, and giving, and helping in the name of "love".

What seperates them from us?

ONLY the Love God can give you when he is ready, and that is True love which seperates "works of iniquity" and "works of righteousness"

We, as Christians can not tell others what to do or not to do, they must be directed by God.

But, we are responsible in speaking truth to the church and it's the churches responsiblity to respond to it, accepting it or rejecting it.

Jesus Christ is not divided!

All the denominations hold part of the truth, but they also hold falsness.

The "tares" among the wheat.

I pray that you consider what the Holy Spirit says and continue to seek the truth above everything else.

speaking truth by the Holy Spirit, serving Jesus Christ and God, our Heavenly Father,

newname

[New_Wineskin]

If you mean by the 3rd "love" command, love your enemies, that is included in to love your neighbor. I think that is the context that John is thinking of in his 1st epistle.
No ... I am thinking of the "love command" that He called "new" that was in a similar form os the other two . Even so , I was only wondering because I consistantly hear or read people leaving that one out . I think that they consider it to be so similar to the "love neighbor as self" that they consider it to be the same thing . But , I don't know . It's no big deal . When I hear/read that , I consider it an opportunity to ask about it .



I would include baptism and the Lord's supper because our Lord asked us to do them, he instituted the supper and was baptized himself to fulfill all righteousness. He is the author and finisher of faith. (Heb 12:2)

His asking your group is fine for your group . Those that disagree show that He hasn't asked them .



In like manner I also observe these things. I do them in faith, as the Lord asks of me, Not questioning his wisdom.

I do not find them to be a burden. I walk by faith, and leave salvation to Christ.

Yes I think that all Christians should do these two things, why would we not?

Well , you say that *you* do them as the Lord asks of you but you say that all Christians should do them . You give yourself the right to hear the Lord and do as He asks but say that all Christians should do them as if what you hear Him tell you is what all should do .



I believe Servant made some valid points, but what I find ironic in the body, is that the commands which are designed to unite us, two of these, the Lord's supper and baptism have become a point of division. When we leave faith behind, and justify a stance, one way or the other, we are no longer living by faith, but by our own understanding.

Peace to you
That is just it ... there is no faith if He hasn't told someone . If one says that all should do so because that is what *they* believe , they attempt to take faith out of the equation for those that don't agree or those who have yet to hear Him for themselves . They either don't agree because the Lord has not told them to do so ( that would grant faith ) or they are being disobedient . More often than not , they are accused of the latter because people consider the former to be impossible .

[Harry the Heretic]

That is just it ... there is no faith if He hasn't told someone . If one says that all should do so because that is what *they* believe , they attempt to take faith out of the equation for those that don't agree or those who have yet to hear Him for themselves . They either don't agree because the Lord has not told them to do so ( that would grant faith ) or they are being disobedient . More often than not , they are accused of the latter because people consider the former to be impossible . No, I do not consider the "former" disobedient. I am not called to agree with men, nor condemn. But I am called to Christ.

I mourn in my spirit for what others don't desire.

"Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift...We call it a gift, grace anointing, enlightenment, garment of imortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called "gift" because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own, "grace" since it is given to the guilty...."

St. Justin


"...Verily Verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

our Lord


Remember, the servant is not greater than his master.

Was Christ not born of water and the Spirit?




God Bless

[New_Wineskin]

No, I do not consider the "former" disobedient. I am not called to agree with men, nor condemn. But I am called to Christ.

I mourn in my spirit for what others don't desire.

I understand . I as well .



"Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift...We call it a gift, grace anointing, enlightenment, garment of imortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called "gift" because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own, "grace" since it is given to the guilty...."

St. Justin


"...Verily Verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

our Lord


Remember, the servant is not greater than his master.

Was Christ not born of water and the Spirit?

Ok . This could get off topic by talking about water baptism specifically . Since you do not consider them disobedient , they are fine and the item is not a *should* .

[servant4ever]

OK, first thing first. I think baptism is one thing that can become a factor into legalism, especially in some baptist churches. Some churches say that if they aren't baptized the right way or if they were over the age of 12 and if it wasn't done by a pastor they aren't a Christian. Is there only one right way of baptism? I think there is, for only God knows. But, there are several references for both sides (Infant vs. Believers baptism, that is). For one side there are examples of the book of Acts where people were baptized after they converted. For the other side there are some examples in the book of Acts where the WHOLE family was baptized the same day, even infants. There is also an example of Jesus saying "if you don't enter the kingdom like a child, you may not enter it" (rough paraphrase). Plus people for infant baptism brings up the example of circumcision in the Old Testament. I do not want to turn this into a baptism debate as there are several out there, but whom am I to judge what way is the right way to baptize if the Bible has arguments for both sides?

I do believe baptism by immersion as a believer is the correct way of baptism, but I do not have a right to say that Lutherans or Catholics are not Christians because they baptize infants. The only criteria for people to become a Christian is by calling on the name of the Lord, which is prescribed in Romans 10:13. I also don't want to turn this into a "baptism necessary for salvation" thread.

When you start placing baptism as 100% essential for a person to be a Christian, IMHO, that becomes legalism because you are placing baptism over love.

Also, Harry, I believe Jesus is talking about the physical and spiritual births in John 3. But, I am not going to call you a less of a Christian or a nonChristian if you believe that.

Second, how do we get rid of legalism in the Church? For example, I feel a call to the pastoral ministry someday. If I was placed into a legalistic church I would be fired within 2 weeks for trying to combat legalism. I submit that a great way to combat legalism is to show love and grace to the people who are legalistic, and maybe they will realize that the Christian life isn't about rules rather than love and grace.

servant4ever

[New_Wineskin]

Second, how do we get rid of legalism in the Church?
I don't see it as something that *we* can eliminate . Though . it is something that the Lord can do in each individual's heart . While I know that I cannot tell a legalist to stop being one ( I become a hypocrite immediately by doing so ) , I can tell them that they have no right to tell me what I may or may not do . I consider this to be the heart of the matter - a person considering that they have authority over other believers without their consent . The reason why they think that they have authority is the same as the Pharasees . They think that they can quote Scriptures and people will automatically do what they quote because all Christians are to be under the authority of the Scriptures . More accurately , they think that others are under the authority of their interpretation of the translator's interpretations of the Scriptures .

I consider that I would like to combat legalism towards me by stating that they and their doctrines are not authorities over me . I also combat it by not continuing the spread of legalism by not doing so myself . One last method is to allow people to know that they can allow the Lord to be their only authority , teacher , Father , pastor , and so forth as the Lord mentioned to His disciples .

[Harry the Heretic]

Some points to ponder;

If there is no consensus, or "orthodoxy" of some kind, then it is possible for the church to laps into error. It was happening in NT times. I am reminded of the gnostics, who it is believed that John condemned in his 1st epistle. They did not deny Jesus, but had a different interpretation. If we claim that the church has no authority or consensus over the interpretation of scripture, then how can we disqualify a Jehovah's witness interpretation?

As it is, I see an anti authoritarian attitude leading to many bad practices. I have known not too few Christians who incorporate new age thinking into their belief system. A comment by another brother on this forum has lead me to believe that a form of mysticism or gnosis is taking root in the church.

the emphasis has been drawn away from repentance, and being made holy by the blood of Christ to an attitude of getting something from God. God is approached for personal self help and fulfillment, and as a "path to enlightenment".

The supernatural intervention of God into human affairs, which was and is, readily apparent, and done with power has been marginalized into an mystic type of intuition, and decernment only available to those who are more "attuned" to the Spirit.

Prayer has for many turned into a transcendental type of meditation, or a psychological exercise.

The righteous judgement of the Lord, and our reverent respect and gratitude for his ultimate sacrifice, has been exchanged for a buddy that is really nice and non judgmental, allowing each to seek his own "path", or way.

The most "mature" in the faith interpret the word independent of 2000 years of Christian tradition and teaching, using an elitist approach, common in many eastern religions, patiently enduring the less enlightened ones.

A lot of scripture is now rationalized, to apply to every ones unique circumstance or development.

The word "work" now has such negative connotations that for many, the Christian faith has been almost totally removed outside of any human experience. Christianity has become nearly completely internalized. So then, We now have license to hold any job, watch any movie, allow our children to be subjected to many evils, and we must embrace any viewpoint in the name of love, tolerance.


Some of these things are not bad in and of themselves, but when more of these things, and others, begin to dominate in the church, It represents a big shift in what living by faith entails. How should the body of Christ address bad teaching without being labeled as legalistic? Especially given that when it does so, they are called legalistic by the "more enlightened" ones.

NW and servant, I do not imply with these comments that you are new age heretics, or that you have an air of superiority. This is a scenario that is being played out near and around me.

Baptism and the Lord's supper at least IMO help to ground the church, in faith. I am not legalistic in how it is to be done per say, but I believe that the practice of these two things would help to unify the body, and bring back, remind us of the reality of God made flesh.

God Bless

[New_Wineskin]

I appologize in advance for the length .

Some points to ponder;

If there is no consensus, or "orthodoxy" of some kind, then it is possible for the church to laps into error. It was happening in NT times. I am reminded of the gnostics, who it is believed that John condemned in his 1st epistle. They did not deny Jesus, but had a different interpretation. If we claim that the church has no authority or consensus over the interpretation of scripture, then how can we disqualify a Jehovah's witness interpretation?

Why do people need to qualify or disqualify someone ? If that is the goal for some people , then those people might need a standard with which to measure all . Yet , people do this and have different standards already . There *is* no consensus .

I resist this type of thing because there is no stopping in additions to the standard . We could start ( let's say ) with breaking bread and water baptism . But , even with those people will disagree . What is the bread made of ? How often ? Is a standard way of breaking bread needed ? Can *anyone* begin the breaking of the bread ? Are strangers allowed to participate ? How old must one be to participate ? I can think of a lot of potential differences in the water baptism .

Those two ideas alone have a great deal of difference in procedure and concept of importance in the realm known as "Christianity" . I don't agree at all with water baptism of any type . Breaking bread I see as a special thing but I wouldn't do it all the time or even most of the time because I wouldn't want to do it out of routine . While I see it as special , I do not see it as required unless the Lord wanted me to do so at the time .



As it is, I see an anti authoritarian attitude leading to many bad practices. I have known not too few Christians who incorporate new age thinking into their belief system. A comment by another brother on this forum has lead me to believe that a form of mysticism or gnosis is taking root in the church.

I hear the idea of anti-authoritarian when I say that Jesus is my sole authority ( I am not saying that you are saying this ) . Why is no human authority considered anti-authoritarian ? Jesus is Lord . Having a human authority leads to more bad practices that having Jesus as their authority . That is at least how I have seen things play out .


The word "work" now has such negative connotations that for many, the Christian faith has been almost totally removed outside of any human experience. Christianity has become nearly completely internalized. So then, We now have license to hold any job, watch any movie, allow our children to be subjected to many evils, and we must embrace any viewpoint in the name of love, tolerance.
I see your points . I say that those things are far more preferential to people being trained to listen to only humans and old doctrines than having a living and interpersonal relationship with the Lord . Having been raised and told that being part of the family's denomination is essential , it would at least have been nice if I was told that I was allowed to look at other groups to see what was out there instead of being told what was out there by those that were never out there .

At least people know that it is definitely between them and the Lord instead of looking for the approval of a group's mindset .



Some of these things are not bad in and of themselves, but when more of these things, and others, begin to dominate in the church, It represents a big shift in what living by faith entails. How should the body of Christ address bad teaching without being labeled as legalistic? Especially given that when it does so, they are called legalistic by the "more enlightened" ones.
I don't really think that is actually difficult . By putting things in terms of what the Lord has for one's self and what the Lord is doing for one's self in communicating helps people to see what is going on with you . In that way , you are presenting the truth as the Lord gives it to you while not implying that others should follow your example or directly placing it on them . People more easily listen when others are sharing their personal life than being told what to do when they are not already in that other's mindset . Instead of reacting to one telling them what to do when they don't have the authority to do so , they can look at what is said and choose for themselves if what was being shared could be applicable for them . Instead of people saying "no" out of hand , there is at least a chance for a "maybe" .



NW and servant, I do not imply with these comments that you are new age heretics, or that you have an air of superiority. This is a scenario that is being played out near and around me.

Baptism and the Lord's supper at least IMO help to ground the church, in faith. I am not legalistic in how it is to be done per say, but I believe that the practice of these two things would help to unify the body, and bring back, remind us of the reality of God made flesh.

God Bless
I thank you for your words . I do understand what you are seeing or at least what you think is going on ( not knowing if you are going on people's actual statements or what you think their statements imply ) . When you say "help to unify ..." , I see that in much better terms than "one must in order to be a Christian" . The way that you say it , it is something that you would like to see happening and there is no condemnation for those not doing so or resisting to do so . The latter implies that there is condemnation and those things are requirements for salvation .

I appreciate your post and your heart . :)

[servant4ever]

Harry,

Do you think there is only one way of doing things for baptism and communion? Like the examples NW gave, do you think that only a pastor and only wine and only jesus' body is the bread is the only way for communion, or do you think it's alright for communion to be in rememberence of Jesus?

Also, with Baptism... Are people not Christains if they were baptized as a child and if they weren't baptized by a pastor and they aren't baptized by immersion? You see what I'm trying to say here? Yes, baptism and communion are important. But, when they try to overtake our love to Jesus, it ends up becoming our "god" instead of Jesus being our God. If we focus on Jesus, we will do what is essentially right, which is to love God and love neighbor. Since God is love (not doctrine, baptism, or communion), and since we have God in us since we invite Him into our lives, we should be growing in love, not doctrine.

Don't be thinking that I'm saying you are lacking in love or that you are a legalist; but when you get too focused on baptism or communion or anything other than Jesus, it becomes legalism.

servant4ever

[Harry the Heretic]

Hello servant,

Baptism and the Lord's supper do focus on Jesus.

It is easy for anyone to say that they love, but until it is put to the test, who knows? I can say that I love my wife but if she asks something of me that I may think is silly or non important, and choose not to honor it, wherein is my love for her manifested? Only in the way that I think it should be?

I do not presume to interpret the Lord's reasons for requesting that I do these things. But because of my love for him, I honor his request. Likewise, I do not impose my interpretation or stipulations on others of these two simple requests. As stated above, I do them by faith, and there in, is my faith and love manifested at the most basic level.

If I cannot be entrusted with even the most basic things of the faith, how am I to be trusted with the greater things.

To Love is a doctrine of Christ. How does one grow in Love? Is it by our own assessment, or is it not by the Love of Christ working through us, not in concept but in deeds, especially during trials. If there is one thing I have learned in my 21 yrs of being a Christian it is that Talk is cheap.

Sayings like "let's all pull together as a team", or "we should all grow in love" etc, have no meaning if not accompanied by the one making the statement giving %200 to a cause, or in case of the latter, laying down one's life for his brother.

The wisdom of Christ, which is contrary to the wisdom of this world (which also professes love btw) has given us these gifts.

Servant I am not saying you do this, but I have seen many others do so; that is to accuse a brother of not being a Christian or to asses an individuals Christian merit by judging the amount of love they perceive this brother manifests. Can you see the hypocrisy of this scenario?

Is it not in a sense, to be judgmental and non loving to reprimand legalist? :D If these things truly did not matter then would it not be better to sacrfice your freedom for your less mature brother as Paul in Roman tells us we should do. :D (just messin with ya a little, of course you are justified, because you seem sincere to me and I am sure you are doing it for the benefit of others and not for yourself)

But do you see were this can lead on both sides?

it is my contention that doctrine, or teachings, is not bad in and of itself, it is the way that it is applied that can be the problem. Love in and of itself as an abstract concept is void. Love is the anointing that should be used in the apllication of all of Christ's doctrines.


Any way I ramble.
Peace to you

[Harry the Heretic]

I hear the idea of anti-authoritarian when I say that Jesus is my sole authority ( I am not saying that you are saying this ) . Why is no human authority considered anti-authoritarian ? Jesus is Lord . Having a human authority leads to more bad practices that having Jesus as their authority . That is at least how I have seen things play out .

There is truth in your statement, but the problem lies in the extreme it can be taken to. If the operation of the church (body of believers) is purely a subjective experience, by what do we associate ourselves, in practice and practicality. There is more than one inmate who has killed for Jesus. Jesus led them to it. If there is one thing that stands out to me in the NT it is that Christ was in a sense, a "methodist". It is by his ultimate work on the cross that we even accept him.

I believe that we should unite in worship essentailly in method and not theory. That way the true heart is manifested.

God bless

[Harry the Heretic]

double post

[New_Wineskin]

There is truth in your statement, but the problem lies in the extreme it can be taken to. If the operation of the church (body of believers) is purely a subjective experience, by what do we associate ourselves, in practice and practicality. There is more than one inmate who has killed for Jesus. Jesus led them to it. If there is one thing that stands out to me in the NT it is that Christ was in a sense, a "methodist". It is by his ultimate work on the cross that we even accept him.

There are many , many , many more recorded atrocities of group activity compared to individual activity . The persecutions and murders during the so called "Reformation" were done because they acted as a mob and their human leaders' teachings and direction were looked upon as significant . People who are in groups and follow group doctrine are responsible for deaths as well .

What you say about accepting Christ is true ... and that is on an individual level . It starts there and ends there . The leaders of a group will not face the Judgement for me ... I will face it for myself .



I believe that we should unite in worship essentailly in method and not theory. That way the true heart is manifested.

God bless
Ok . If we unite under method , who's method ? How about mine ? Most people would say "no" to that and they actually say that they desire unity . If those that desire unity haven't yet unified , I don't see a reason to be concerned about my part in it at this time . I always consider that we are united . Physically performing the same method can be done without sincerity . Those who are in Christ are already united .

[Harry the Heretic]

Ok . If we unite under method , who's method ? How about mine ? Most people would say "no" to that and they actually say that they desire unity . If those that desire unity haven't yet unified , I don't see a reason to be concerned about my part in it at this time . I always consider that we are united . Physically performing the same method can be done without sincerity . Those who are in Christ are already united . I only care for unity because it was a concern of Christ's. There is theological validity to being united by Christ however, the Apostles warn of division and strife among the bretheren. Your description then becomes a paradox, which is fine, Christianity is full of them, but your interpretation of unity does not negate a striving for untiy, or seeking to negate further division.

The method imployed should not be mine or yours, but Christ's. It is when we rationalize it, that there are problems.

In your method, it is possible for a Christian to be an island to himself, just he and the Lord only. Though I would not argue the salvation of such an individual, I do not believe that is the fulness of Christian life that our Lord intended.

There are many , many , many more recorded atrocities of group activity compared to individual activity . The persecutions and murders during the so called "Reformation" were done because they acted as a mob and their human leaders' teachings and direction were looked upon as significant . People who are in groups and follow group doctrine are responsible for deaths as well .
When a faction of society perpetrates violence or other crimes contradictory to its laws or values, that does not mean that those codes of conduct, which manifest the values of the society, are negated or should be discarded. But if there are no guidelines for the manifestation of those guidelines, then anything goes.

You are right in saying that each will be judged accountable, accepted, etc. on an individual basis, regardless of the error or righteousness of the many.

God Bless

[New_Wineskin]

I only care for unity because it was a concern of Christ's. There is theological validity to being united by Christ however, the Apostles warn of division and strife among the bretheren. Your description then becomes a paradox, which is fine, Christianity is full of them, but your interpretation of unity does not negate a striving for untiy, or seeking to negate further division.

The method imployed should not be mine or yours, but Christ's. It is when we rationalize it, that there are problems.

Ok . Then , what is the method for unity that you consider to be Christ's method ? We can't all meet together whether we are unified or not . There are too many of us and we are scattered throughout the world .

We most likely disagree on what unity even looks like by considering that there is actual division . I consider that we are already unified . How can I strive to obtain what I already have ?



In your method, it is possible for a Christian to be an island to himself, just he and the Lord only. Though I would not argue the salvation of such an individual, I do not believe that is the fulness of Christian life that our Lord intended.
With regard to the island , it is an island only with respect to the concept of organizational membership . In fact , the idea of membership is one of the very ideas that cause what people see as division . The derogatory term "church hopping" is the same as promoting disunity in the idea of denominationalism and forcing people to be seperate . So , denominationalism ( and nondenominationalism that has membership/committment/covenant ) is another form of "he and the Lord only" . They are only larger islands .

I can see why you consider that it is not all one can be . However , many rely on the group as being *all* the fullness that the Lord intended . If one is an island because the Lord told them to be , there should be no problem since who would argue against doing what the Lord wanted ? People move and are an island while looking for a group . That is usually considered acceptable . Thinking of a time limit on this makes it something that it is not .



You are right in saying that each will be judged accountable, accepted, etc. on an individual basis, regardless of the error or righteousness of the many.
Thank you . :)

[Mother Vashti]

Interesting thread.