By schisms rent asunder, By heresies distressed ...

[MoreCoffee]

There's a lot of heresy around nowadays. I guess there always has been but now it seems that there are many who profess faith in Jesus Christ but believe heresies and these people attend meetings in churches and denominations that have (in former times) a reputation for orthodoxy on the major doctrines of the faith. There are people who:

• express doubts about the importance of doctrine
• voice the opinion that theology will not form a part of the matter upon which one is judged at the last judgement
• say that belief in the Holy Trinity is not 'essential for salvation'
• and that a proper understanding of the incarnation is too academic and too obscure to be expected of the man (or woman) sitting in the pew

Some want to enjoy 'church services' and be 'fed' at them but do not seem very concerned about what is taught in the 'church services' that they attend they say that they are looking for a place where their family can feel at home and where the greeting is warm and the children are catered for with an assortment of activities suitable for their ages. Some want seeker friendly services. Some want contemporary music and contemporary (and relevant) messages. A few want a good liturgy.

Where is this leading? Will the folk who say these sorts of things and desire these qualities in the meetings that they attend face a harsh judgement from God or is that unimportant?

 

[Lamb]

Modern evangelicals keep straying further and further don't they?

 

[Josiah]

I think the "problem" is two-fold (and I have my Greek Orthodox friend to thank for this insight)....

1. Pride. People INSISTING that God must submit to THEIR brains, THIER thinking, THEIR philosophies, THEIR theories..... "over-thinking"..... replacing MYSTERY with their own puny, limited, sinful brains. As my friend says of the RCC, "their amazing, unlimited ego means they just won't shut up but constantly invent new theories and doctrines, forcing God to submit and agree, dividing Christianity with their silliness." We are to be stewards of the MYSTERIES of God, not constantly forcing God to submit to OUR attempts to explain, limit, humanize things. I think of Purgatory, Transubstantiation.... oh, so much.

2. Individualism. The church is US - all of us, together. But sadly, Christianity (especially the RCC) ain't called the ROMAN church for nothing.... it inherited from Rome an utterly unchristian sense of INDIVIDUALISM, self-centeredness.... ME, ME. Read the Catechism of the RCC, it's all about that one denomination: itself and all the incredible claims it itself makes for it itself individually. Only IT can interpret Scripture. Only IT can speak authoritatively. Only IT is lead and protected by God. When IT speaks, God ergo must agree. The level of individualism in the RCC - the uber focus on ITSELF is stunning and obviously divisive. Early, there was at least a SMALL, TINY and very limited effort with the ECUMENICAL Councils but the RCC killed that by 800 AD when the last one ended. Now, sadly..... Protestantism is too much like our parent denomination (the RCC) in this regard, WAY too much individualism here too, way too much looking in the mirror at self (whether as a denomination or as individuals) - something we learned lock, stock and barrel from the RCC (of course no Protestant does this as badly as the RC Denomination does, no Protestant goes to the extreme that the RCC does on this).

The OP speaks of something genuine.... something I lament, too. It's a large part of why I left the RC Denomination. But the answer is NOT more of the problem! MORE pride, MORE individualism - the very things that caused the MESS that divided things in 451, 800, 1054, etc. It's the antithesis. What we need is a strong, strong repudiation of that and a strong sense of HUMILITY and COMMUNITY. The opening poster and I have had this discussion often at other websites.



Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[Romanos]

Moved to World Theology.

 

[tango]

There's a lot of heresy around nowadays. I guess there always has been but now it seems that there are many who profess faith in Jesus Christ but believe heresies and these people attend meetings in churches and denominations that have (in former times) a reputation for orthodoxy on the major doctrines of the faith. There are people who:

• express doubts about the importance of doctrine
• voice the opinion that theology will not form a part of the matter upon which one is judged at the last judgement
• say that belief in the Holy Trinity is not 'essential for salvation'
• and that a proper understanding of the incarnation is too academic and too obscure to be expected of the man (or woman) sitting in the pew

Some want to enjoy 'church services' and be 'fed' at them but do not seem very concerned about what is taught in the 'church services' that they attend they say that they are looking for a place where their family can feel at home and where the greeting is warm and the children are catered for with an assortment of activities suitable for their ages. Some want seeker friendly services. Some want contemporary music and contemporary (and relevant) messages. A few want a good liturgy.

Where is this leading? Will the folk who say these sorts of things and desire these qualities in the meetings that they attend face a harsh judgement from God or is that unimportant?

I think the best answer to a lot of this is "yes, well, kinda".

I see good doctrine and theology as important, but would differentiate between what is crucial and what is not crucial. For example, I see baptism as being something for adults to do as a statement of their own faith as opposed to something done to children as a statement of their parents' faith (or, sometimes, their parents' conformity to social pressure). If someone else chooses to go for infant baptism I wouldn't say they aren't a brother or sister in Christ, I just wouldn't agree with their choices. On the other hand reading something like Brent Engelman's teaching on prophecy I have to say I don't recognise the god he describes in his material, so all I could conclude is that he is following a different god than I am. He might claim all sorts of signs and wonders but his teaching so directly contradicts the Bible I'd say he falls foul of the Deuteronomy test of a prophet who says "come, let us go after other gods".

I also think that having good doctrine and theology is great but only if we live it. Jesus comments about "when you did it not to the least of these" suggests there's so much more to it than having a good intellectual grasp of the Bible. As Paul said in 1Co 13, if we understand all mysteries but have no love we are still nothing. Jesus said the greatest commandments were to love God and love each other. Deep theological understanding didn't get a mention.

I think one crucial consideration is that Jesus said we were to love God with, among other things, all of our mind. If we have the kind of intellect that makes Albert Einstein look like a putz then we'd be expected to love God with all that intellect, and I'd imagine such a person would find it a bit awkward on Judgment Day if they spent their time reading comic books. On the other hand if we're the sort of person who can't count past 10 without taking off our shoes and socks we won't be expected to have mastered all mysteries. It's back to the whole "to whom much has been given, much is expected" concept.

Regarding the style of church services I don't think there's anything wrong with having particular preferences, as long as we don't seek out something less important over something more important. Personally I like a more contemporary service but I'd rather take traditional hymns and solid teaching over the latest songs and lame teaching. As it happens I left a very charismatic church for that very reason - the service style was very contemporary but mindlessly repetitive and a few people who had some very strange ideas were allowed far more time with the microphone than I found appropriate. I moved to a far more conservative church - it's too conservative for my preference but the teaching is solid and that's more important than enjoying the music. It's also a useful reminder that "feeling God" in a church service can very often be little more than an emotional response to the music. I always figured that when I could predict with near 100% accuracy when the hands would go in the air the chances are I was seeing an emotional response rather than God moving.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think the best answer to a lot of this is "yes, well, kinda".

I see good doctrine and theology as important, but would differentiate between what is crucial and what is not crucial. For example, I see baptism as being something for adults to do as a statement of their own faith as opposed to something done to children as a statement of their parents' faith (or, sometimes, their parents' conformity to social pressure). ...

I am curious to know whence came the idea that baptism is "to do as a statement of their own faith"?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think the "problem" is two-fold ...

1. Pride. ... As my friend says of the RCC, "their amazing, unlimited ego ..." ...

2. Individualism. ... self-centeredness.... ME, ME. Read the Catechism of the RCC, it's all about that one denomination...

The OP speaks of something genuine.... something I lament, too. It's a large part of why I left the RC Denomination. ...

It is amazing how every topic can be turned, by those with ill will towards her, into an opportunity to write something negative about the Catholic Church.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Modern evangelicals keep straying further and further don't they?

You could be right. I remember what being an evangelical was like in the 1980s and 1990s and it has changed a lot in the 20 to 30 years that have past. It appears to be changed to the detriment of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ within evangelicalism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Moved to World Theology.

I do not understand why the thread was moved.

 

[tango]

I am curious to know whence came the idea that baptism is "to do as a statement of their own faith"?

If the basic model to follow is "repent and be baptised" then it follows that baptism follows repentance. The Bible doesn't say "repent and baptise someone else".

Fundamentally the question comes back to whether baptism is something I do as a free choice, or something that is done to me by someone else when I'm too young to get a say in the matter. I refer to "a statement of (adults') own faith" to represent the idea that my view of baptism is that it is something an adult does voluntarily after coming to faith in Jesus Christ, rather than something done to children by parents who may or may not even believe and when the child in question may never have a faith of their own.

Having seen a few of my friends have blazing rows with their parents during teenage years because the parents expected their children to be confirmed (which involves making a public profession of faith) even if the children had no faith at all, I tend to be a bit wary of anything that is done to someone else, or expected of someone else. I can see that it's possible for a teenager to be baptised by full immersion as a result of parental pressure but it's not something I've ever come across. Maybe my worldview is slightly distorted and in other churches teenagers are bullied into baptism by parents, it's hard to know.

 

[Brighten04]

we alerady have two threads devoted to baptism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If the basic model to follow is "repent and be baptised" then it follows that baptism follows repentance. The Bible doesn't say "repent and baptise someone else"...

Fundamentally the bible never says that baptism is "to do as a statement of their own faith". That's come from somewhere else. Not from holy scripture.

 

[Josiah]

If the basic model to follow is "repent and be baptised" then it follows that baptism follows repentance.

Only if the word "and" mandates order. Of course, it does not. Not in English, not in Koine Greek. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with order. It in no what whatsoever even implies it. "Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were both presidents of the USA." Does the word "and" mandate that Clinton came first and then, after that, Reagan did? "My car has an engine and brakes." Does that mandate that first an engine was put in the car and only after that were the brakes? "I got up this morning, showered, made coffee and fed the bunny." Is it MANDATED (or even implied) that I did them in that exact chronological order (because I didn't, lol)? If you can substantiate that the word "and" (kai in koine Greek) mandates chronological order - then the point that baptism follows repentance is valid. But if not, it's baseless.

Fundamentally the bible never says that baptism is "to do as a statement of their own faith". That's come from somewhere else. Not from holy scripture.

Correct. It's a late Tradition. It began around 500 years ago (so no more than 25% of Christian history) from those in a radical movement in Germany called "Anabaptists." There is nothing in Scripture that so states.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah


.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I think all schisms are unfounded.

As someone already stated; ones ability to understand the word of GOD given them by the will of GOD is the determining factor. One may grasp only the larger points of scripture like the unconditional love for and of GOD, loving thy neighbors as much as you love yourself, and repentance from sin in which case they will be held responsible for those things and their actions towards or away from GOD.

To answer your question; any ignorant are safe in their ignorance. Any who aren't ignorant to whatever level are accountable fo their own Faith and the actions that reflect said Faith.

So in short; if one knows of a man made doctrine that goes against the teachings of the Christ and still adheres to it for the sight of man, then yes, they will be held accountable, and yes it is idol worship and blasphemy to do such.

Peace with humility.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

 

[MoreCoffee]

we already have two threads devoted to baptism.

I think you may be right but I wonder if anybody thinks that credo-baptism is a heresy (aside from me)? The idea that one must believe first and then be baptised and that one must be fit to receive baptism by making a public profession of faith in one's own right as a responsible human being has caused many schisms among professing Christians.

 

[Brighten04]

I think you may be right but I wonder if anybody thinks that credo-baptism is a heresy (aside from me)? The idea that one must believe first and then be baptised and that one must be fit to receive baptism by making a public profession of faith in one's own right as a responsible human being has caused many schisms among professing Christians.

Do you know how this sounds? You are saying that an unbeliever does not have to believe to be baptized. How ludicrous! Why would an unbeliever even want to consent to be baptized?

 

[Josiah]

Do you know how this sounds? You are saying that an unbeliever does not have to believe to be baptized. How ludicrous! Why would an unbeliever even want to consent to be baptized?

What Scripture says one was "consent" before they may be baptized? Does the command state, "Go and ask people if they consent to being baptized and taught?"

Do babies consent to becoming citizens? Does it offend you that they never are? Does a baby consent to being given life? Does a baby consent to having air? Is it "ludicrous" for them to be blessed, given something - without their "consent?"

???

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think you may be right but I wonder if anybody thinks that credo-baptism is a heresy (aside from me)? The idea that one must believe first and then be baptised and that one must be fit to receive baptism by making a public profession of faith in one's own right as a responsible human being has caused many schisms among professing Christians.

Do you know how this sounds? You are saying that an unbeliever does not have to believe to be baptized. How ludicrous! Why would an unbeliever even want to consent to be baptized?

But I said no such thing nor do I believe any such thing nor does my Church teach any such thing. The conclusion created in your post is what's absurd because no Christian denomination and no Christian Church teaches, as far as I am aware, that unbaptised unbelieving adults ought to be knowingly baptised by any lawfully ordained pastor.

 

[tango]

Only if the word "and" mandates order. Of course, it does not. Not in English, not in Koine Greek. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with order. It in no what whatsoever even implies it. "Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were both presidents of the USA." Does the word "and" mandate that Clinton came first and then, after that, Reagan did? "My car has an engine and brakes." Does that mandate that first an engine was put in the car and only after that were the brakes? "I got up this morning, showered, made coffee and fed the bunny." Is it MANDATED (or even implied) that I did them in that exact chronological order (because I didn't, lol)? If you can substantiate that the word "and" (kai in koine Greek) mandates chronological order - then the point that baptism follows repentance is valid. But if not, it's baseless.

Sure, we can pick apart the meaning of the word "and" all we want. It's perfectly true to say that if I eat "bacon and eggs" I can eat the eggs before the bacon. But sometimes the context makes one particular order absurd. If I study nuclear physics and start a career as a nuclear physicist the word "and" doesn't require an order but the context makes it clear that a particular order is required. Not many people start careers as nuclear physicists without first studying nuclear physics.

So you can argue that from a perspective of pure logic one might be baptised and then repent at some future time. But why would someone who had not repented want to be baptised at all?

 

[tango]

What Scripture says one was "consent" before they may be baptized? Does the command state, "Go and ask people if they consent to being baptized and taught?"

Do babies consent to becoming citizens? Does it offend you that they never are? Does a baby consent to being given life? Does a baby consent to having air? Is it "ludicrous" for them to be blessed, given something - without their "consent?"

???

If consent isn't required why don't we gather up a few big strong Christians, grab people who walk near large bodies of water and baptise them whether they like it or not? At some point a lack of consent creates absurd situations.