|
Post by faune on Dec 4, 2014 17:36:59 GMT -5
Snow ~ I was thinking that this guy sounds a lot like Hitler in Nazi German and his hatred towards the Jews. This excerpt from your article at the end of the article speaks for itself. This guy could compete with the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church with all their hateful talk about gays, too. I doubt that all conservative Christians share this view, which is about as judgmental as it comes and filled with hatred and strife. The video shared within this article was also disturbing for any pastor, too! In addition, what was more disturbing was the fact that you should hear laughter in the congregation regarding his remarks and people agreeing with this man!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 4, 2014 23:34:00 GMT -5
Snow ~ I was thinking that this guy sounds a lot like Hitler in Nazi German and his hatred towards the Jews. This excerpt from your article at the end of the article speaks for itself. This guy could compete with the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church with all their hateful talk about gays, too. I doubt that all conservative Christians share this view, which is about as judgmental as it comes and filled with hatred and strife. The video shared within this article was also disturbing for any pastor, too! In addition, what was more disturbing was the fact that you should hear laughter in the congregation regarding his remarks and people agreeing with this man!
I think the point was, the guy is more than a little scary. You wouldn't be able to reason with someone like him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 23:44:24 GMT -5
Snow ~ I was thinking that this guy sounds a lot like Hitler in Nazi German and his hatred towards the Jews. This excerpt from your article at the end of the article speaks for itself. This guy could compete with the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church with all their hateful talk about gays, too. I doubt that all conservative Christians share this view, which is about as judgmental as it comes and filled with hatred and strife. The video shared within this article was also disturbing for any pastor, too! In addition, what was more disturbing was the fact that you should hear laughter in the congregation regarding his remarks and people agreeing with this man!
i'm pretty far right but i don't hear any of my friends or myself calling for the execution of gays or lesbians...he's more like than not just a fringe element that all societies have...one might also note that the killing of homosexuals was an OT requirement and not an NT requirement....
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 5, 2014 0:56:27 GMT -5
Snow ~ I was thinking that this guy sounds a lot like Hitler in Nazi German and his hatred towards the Jews. This excerpt from your article at the end of the article speaks for itself. This guy could compete with the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church with all their hateful talk about gays, too. I doubt that all conservative Christians share this view, which is about as judgmental as it comes and filled with hatred and strife. The video shared within this article was also disturbing for any pastor, too! In addition, what was more disturbing was the fact that you should hear laughter in the congregation regarding his remarks and people agreeing with this man!
i'm pretty far right but i don't hear any of my friends or myself calling for the execution of gays or lesbians...he's more like than not just a fringe element that all societies have...one might also note that the killing of homosexuals was an OT requirement and not an NT requirement.... Wally ~ I don't feel many conservative Christians would really share this pastor's view? He's pretty eccentric for a young guy and really over the top in his hateful rhetoric. What really made me cringe was hearing people in the congregation agreeing with this jerk. If I heard any pastor speaking like that, I would have walked out of his service and never returned! He's definitely imbalanced and lacking in any Christian compassion towards his fellowman to make such statements!
Hopefully society has come a long way since ancient times when there were a lot of rules on the books that would be considered crazy today ~ like stoning your unruly teenagers or killing or excluding anybody with any difference in their make-up? Even the handicapped and deformed were kept outside the meeting tent and excluded from fellowship along with homosexuals who were marked for stoning and women were considered as nothing more than property of the husband in a patriarchal society.
Also, the practice of human sacrifices was just another aspect of this ancient world. Remind Jephthah in the Bible who sacrificed his own daughter to keep a vow in the book of Judges along with other examples of the same, such as Abraham and his only son, who was stopped by God's intervention by supplying a ram in the thicket? However, in Jephthah's case, he was permitted to sacrifice his only daughter with no intervention on God's part.
Honestly, Old Testament law was lacking in humane treatment of people and such laws should never be considered actually ordained by God, but rather the product of men's mind and religious requirements in that day and time. Thank goodness, we have moved on in our treatment of people of difference within society and see things more realistically than ancient times!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 5, 2014 10:59:08 GMT -5
i'm pretty far right but i don't hear any of my friends or myself calling for the execution of gays or lesbians...he's more like than not just a fringe element that all societies have...one might also note that the killing of homosexuals was an OT requirement and not an NT requirement.... Wally ~ I don't feel many conservative Christians would really share this pastor's view? He's pretty eccentric for a young guy and really over the top in his hateful rhetoric. What really made me cringe was hearing people in the congregation agreeing with this jerk. If I heard any pastor speaking like that, I would have walked out of his service and never returned! He's definitely imbalanced and lacking in any Christian compassion towards his fellowman to make such statements!
Hopefully society has come a long way since ancient times when there were a lot of rules on the books that would be considered crazy today ~ like stoning your unruly teenagers or killing or excluding anybody with any difference in their make-up? Even the handicapped and deformed were kept outside the meeting tent and excluded from fellowship along with homosexuals who were marked for stoning and women were considered as nothing more than property of the husband in a patriarchal society.
Also, the practice of human sacrifices was just another aspect of this ancient world. Remind Jephthah in the Bible who sacrificed his own daughter to keep a vow in the book of Judges along with other examples of the same, such as Abraham and his only son, who was stopped by God's intervention by supplying a ram in the thicket? However, in Jephthah's case, he was permitted to sacrifice his only daughter with no intervention on God's part.
Honestly, Old Testament law was lacking in humane treatment of people and such laws should never be considered actually ordained by God, but rather the product of men's mind and religious requirements in that day and time. Thank goodness, we have moved on in our treatment of people of difference within society and see things more realistically than ancient times!
Reminded me of an old saying in regards to how we treat other people. "You can gather more flies with honey then with briars or dirt." That's true...thing of it is, no one has explained what about the poor flies who like the honey so well they get out in the middle of it and get stuck and can't get away to save their lives! So is the "gentle" approach in the long run just as negative in thought of conclusion as the other thought of killing flies with briars, dirt or fly swatters?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 5, 2014 12:12:24 GMT -5
i'm pretty far right but i don't hear any of my friends or myself calling for the execution of gays or lesbians...he's more like than not just a fringe element that all societies have...one might also note that the killing of homosexuals was an OT requirement and not an NT requirement.... Wally ~ I don't feel many conservative Christians would really share this pastor's view? He's pretty eccentric for a young guy and really over the top in his hateful rhetoric. What really made me cringe was hearing people in the congregation agreeing with this jerk. If I heard any pastor speaking like that, I would have walked out of his service and never returned! He's definitely imbalanced and lacking in any Christian compassion towards his fellowman to make such statements!
Hopefully society has come a long way since ancient times when there were a lot of rules on the books that would be considered crazy today ~ like stoning your unruly teenagers or killing or excluding anybody with any difference in their make-up? Even the handicapped and deformed were kept outside the meeting tent and excluded from fellowship along with homosexuals who were marked for stoning and women were considered as nothing more than property of the husband in a patriarchal society.
Also, the practice of human sacrifices was just another aspect of this ancient world. Remind Jephthah in the Bible who sacrificed his own daughter to keep a vow in the book of Judges along with other examples of the same, such as Abraham and his only son, who was stopped by God's intervention by supplying a ram in the thicket? However, in Jephthah's case, he was permitted to sacrifice his only daughter with no intervention on God's part.
Honestly, Old Testament law was lacking in humane treatment of people and such laws should never be considered actually ordained by God, but rather the product of men's mind and religious requirements in that day and time. Thank goodness, we have moved on in our treatment of people of difference within society and see things more realistically than ancient times!
Trouble is, as I see it, is that the book exists and there are always going to be some that believe it needs to be taken literally. This guy truly believes that the reason there is AIDS is because we haven't been obeying the bible and killing them. Terrorist groups are of that mindset. We need to kill the infidels so that life will be better for us. It's all those who are unGodly that are making this world so terrible so we need to do God's will and get rid of them. I sometimes wonder what will happen as they just increase the terribleness of the world by their actions and the far right in Christianity will start up in retaliation. It is evident that there are groups that definitely think that way. What is they start acting on their mindset.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 5, 2014 16:52:22 GMT -5
One of the saddest comments I got was from a former worker who said, 'after reading your book I had difficulty sleeping when I thought of all the people I had misled over the years as to the Scriptural way of Salvation, the workers preach 'another gospel.' What's really sad is that people think squabbling over doctrine is of very much relevance at all. This ex worker must have a large ego to think he can come between God and his will for individuals. What Hat I find it sad that you so easily dismiss the importance of doctrine and especially sound doctrine. Your attitude stands in stark contrast to the exhortations we find in Scripture. Here are a few of them: [17] I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV) [3] As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [5] The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (1 Timothy 1:3-5 ESV) [6] If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. (1 Timothy 4:6 ESV) [3] If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, [5] and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Timothy 6:3-5 ESV) [9] He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV) [1] But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1 ESV)
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 5, 2014 20:39:51 GMT -5
What's really sad is that people think squabbling over doctrine is of very much relevance at all. This ex worker must have a large ego to think he can come between God and his will for individuals. What Hat I find it sad that you so easily dismiss the importance of doctrine and especially sound doctrine. Your attitude stands in stark contrast to the exhortations we find in Scripture. Here are a few of them: [17] I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV) [3] As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [5] The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (1 Timothy 1:3-5 ESV) [6] If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. (1 Timothy 4:6 ESV) [3] If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, [5] and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Timothy 6:3-5 ESV) [9] He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV) [1] But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1 ESV) Irvine, I think WH has a good understanding of the sound doctrine referred to in scripture e.g.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 5, 2014 21:46:47 GMT -5
So how is what you wrote fixit at odds with what Irvine Grey quoted. I am sure he believes and practices what is written in your post too. Do you think your post nullifies his post or are both compatible? We can challenge doctrine and still have all those qualities. Do you think Paul was lacking love, sound doctrine, self control etc when he wrote these letters to the Christians. Why would you quote these verses to Grey but not to What Hat?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 6, 2014 0:42:06 GMT -5
What's really sad is that people think squabbling over doctrine is of very much relevance at all. This ex worker must have a large ego to think he can come between God and his will for individuals. What Hat I find it sad that you so easily dismiss the importance of doctrine and especially sound doctrine. Your attitude stands in stark contrast to the exhortations we find in Scripture. Here are a few of them: [17] I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV) [3] As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [5] The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (1 Timothy 1:3-5 ESV) [6] If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. (1 Timothy 4:6 ESV) [3] If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, [5] and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Timothy 6:3-5 ESV) [9] He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV) [1] But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1 ESV) I think my words were "squabbling over doctrine", not "doctrine" itself. When you choose to attack another denomination as "a different gospel" you'd be wise to consider your quote from 1 Timothy 6:3-5. In my experience it's not a different Gospel they preach. It's the King James Version of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and that's all I ever heard. Not the Gospel of the Nicene Creed or the Chalcedonian Creed.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 6, 2014 0:46:32 GMT -5
So how is what you wrote fixit at odds with what Irvine Grey quoted. I am sure he believes and practices what is written in your post too. Do you think your post nullifies his post or are both compatible? We can challenge doctrine and still have all those qualities. Do you think Paul was lacking love, sound doctrine, self control etc when he wrote these letters to the Christians. Why would you quote these verses to Grey but not to What Hat? But the doctrine that fixit quoted is not what Grey used to assess the friends. Grey used Bebbington's quadrilateral to assess the friends. I have no objection to Bebbington's quadrilateral as a method of classifying denominations ... but as a method of assessing whether doctrine is sound? No.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 6, 2014 0:59:40 GMT -5
That would be an extreme example of what I was thinking of. I saw a cartoon recently contrasting the approach of religion versus science. Religion begins with certain premises, and then looks for confirmation of those premises. Science begins with phenomena or a set of facts, and then looks for the most reasonable explanation that fits those facts. I think there is some room for both in life. However, when you talk to someone who regulates every aspect of life using religious premises, you quickly find that they have an answer for everything you might mention to them. But they're not good answers. There are always certain default answers like "God will make that clear to you one day". Or, "God maybe laid that as a stumbling block for us". And you cannot penetrate those.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 6, 2014 1:37:40 GMT -5
So how is what you wrote fixit at odds with what Irvine Grey quoted. I am sure he believes and practices what is written in your post too. Do you think your post nullifies his post or are both compatible? We can challenge doctrine and still have all those qualities. Do you think Paul was lacking love, sound doctrine, self control etc when he wrote these letters to the Christians. Why would you quote these verses to Grey but not to What Hat? I quoted what the bible refers to as sound doctrine. If that's what Irvine Grey considers to be sound doctrine then we're on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 6, 2014 2:27:29 GMT -5
I liked Grey's book. It raised attention to the use of obfuscation as a means of obstructing inquiry into the sect. Grey rightly assails the workers for proffering a works-based-righteous of their own invention. The works based righteousness you refer to is a fabrication of the opposition. When people continue to say that and repeat it often then it is eventually passed on as something true. We believe in salvation by the blood of Christ as our only redeeming hope. What we also believe is that good works will follow those who profess to have salvation. "By their fruits you shall know them. Some people believe that once saved always saved. Nothing could be further from the truth. ...Paul himself said, "I have a fear that once having preached to others I myself should be a castaway (I Cor. 9:27). He had a fear but he knew better. Paul knew the calling and election of the saints was sure. Legalism says "If I do this, God will save me". Christendom entertains this theology or attitude to it's ambiguation, but 2x2ism and other exclusive sects present the humanistic presumption and blasphemy: "Be one of us and thou shalt be saved".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2014 3:27:57 GMT -5
The works based righteousness you refer to is a fabrication of the opposition. When people continue to say that and repeat it often then it is eventually passed on as something true. We believe in salvation by the blood of Christ as our only redeeming hope. What we also believe is that good works will follow those who profess to have salvation. "By their fruits you shall know them. Some people believe that once saved always saved. Nothing could be further from the truth. ...Paul himself said, "I have a fear that once having preached to others I myself should be a castaway (I Cor. 9:27). He had a fear but he knew better. Paul knew the calling and election of the saints was sure. Legalism says "If I do this, God will save me". Christendom entertains this theology or attitude to it's ambiguation, but 2x2ism and other exclusive sects present the humanistic presumption and blasphemy: "Be one of us and thou shalt be saved". Lee, I'm not sure if you really mean this (presuming you have once professed?). I can't speak for other sects, but the phrase that I have emboldened above is actually the opposite of my experience, which I would suggest is very uniform. At no time during my many years connected with the 2x2s was I ever taught that my salvation was guaranteed. Yes, it was commonly believed the sect was the only right way, but salvation had to be worked for. Personally, it is my believe that salvation is a process which involves the FULL Gospel of Christ, lasting from the moment we turn to Christ until the moment we die, however long or short that may be. It is not (imo) a one-off thing and confined to the so called Gospel of Grace or Gospel of Works etc. These are extractions from the full Gospel meal, which are designed by the agent involved to create division, dissent and separation, etc. Many are tempted to choose one or the other, but in reality you cannot divide the Gospel of Christ. You must be willing for it all and in order to do so, you must be involved in the "process!"
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 6, 2014 8:59:04 GMT -5
So how is what you wrote fixit at odds with what Irvine Grey quoted. I am sure he believes and practices what is written in your post too. Do you think your post nullifies his post or are both compatible? We can challenge doctrine and still have all those qualities. Do you think Paul was lacking love, sound doctrine, self control etc when he wrote these letters to the Christians. Why would you quote these verses to Grey but not to What Hat? I quoted what the bible refers to as sound doctrine. If that's what Irvine Grey considers to be sound doctrine then we're on the same page. His doctrine appears to be that, plus. I personally don't see all that much difference from one denomination to another. 80% of Christendom has decided on a certain "model" which has incorporated the teachings of Jesus and then adds the worship of Jesus instead of God. (They get around this through the sophistry of saying Jesus is God and God is Jesus.) The reason they've added this component is to create an impassible gap with themselves and their Jewish forbears, and by consequence, every other religion as well. We'll be stuck with the "clash of civilizations" as long as Christians embrace the false teaching that Jesus is God. It seems clear to me that Jesus came to tell us about God, not to be worshiped in place of Him. The problem with Christendom has come to be that if you don't worship Jesus instead of God, you're "dangerous". It's a perverse and divisive way of looking at humanity.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Dec 6, 2014 9:56:24 GMT -5
He had a fear but he knew better. Paul knew the calling and election of the saints was sure. Legalism says "If I do this, God will save me". Christendom entertains this theology or attitude to it's ambiguation, but 2x2ism and other exclusive sects present the humanistic presumption and blasphemy: "Be one of us and thou shalt be saved". Lee, I'm not sure if you really mean this (presuming you have once professed?). I can't speak for other sects, but the phrase that I have emboldened above is actually the opposite of my experience, which I would suggest is very uniform. At no time during my many years connected with the 2x2s was I ever taught that my salvation was guaranteed. Yes, it was commonly believed the sect was the only right way, but salvation had to be worked for. Personally, it is my believe that salvation is a process which involves the FULL Gospel of Christ, lasting from the moment we turn to Christ until the moment we die, however long or short that may be. It is not (imo) a one-off thing and confined to the so called Gospel of Grace or Gospel of Works etc. These are extractions from the full Gospel meal, which are designed by the agent involved to create division, dissent and separation, etc. Many are tempted to choose one or the other, but in reality you cannot divide the Gospel of Christ. You must be willing for it all and in order to do so, you must be involved in the "process!" " ...Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling..." You are right we MUST be involved in the process.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 6, 2014 11:12:30 GMT -5
That would be an extreme example of what I was thinking of. I saw a cartoon recently contrasting the approach of religion versus science. Religion begins with certain premises, and then looks for confirmation of those premises. Science begins with phenomena or a set of facts, and then looks for the most reasonable explanation that fits those facts. I think there is some room for both in life. However, when you talk to someone who regulates every aspect of life using religious premises, you quickly find that they have an answer for everything you might mention to them. But they're not good answers. There are always certain default answers like "God will make that clear to you one day". Or, "God maybe laid that as a stumbling block for us". And you cannot penetrate those. No you can't penetrate those. And in my experience that's often what it comes down to when talking about things that require faith. There is no other place to go with things like that. He is an example of extreme, I do agree. But there are getting to be more and more extreme beliefs in Christianity it seems. Whether it is born of fear or something else I don't know. Or maybe I just happen to hear about more extreme Christians and their beliefs? I know I have to be quiet a lot when around my birth family because some of the things they say and believe horrify me at times. Mostly I see a majority of Christians are just pompous in their belief that their brand of Christianity is the right one and their interpretation the only one that is accurate. To say that one branch of Christianity is more 'Christian' or has the more right doctrine than another is imo pompous and if it wasn't so ignorant, humorous. It's an argument over which definition of supernatural is correct when it is most likely neither is.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 6, 2014 11:35:13 GMT -5
That would be an extreme example of what I was thinking of. I saw a cartoon recently contrasting the approach of religion versus science. Religion begins with certain premises, and then looks for confirmation of those premises. Science begins with phenomena or a set of facts, and then looks for the most reasonable explanation that fits those facts. I think there is some room for both in life. However, when you talk to someone who regulates every aspect of life using religious premises, you quickly find that they have an answer for everything you might mention to them. But they're not good answers. There are always certain default answers like "God will make that clear to you one day". Or, "God maybe laid that as a stumbling block for us". And you cannot penetrate those. No you can't penetrate those. And in my experience that's often what it comes down to when talking about things that require faith. There is no other place to go with things like that. He is an example of extreme, I do agree. But there are getting to be more and more extreme beliefs in Christianity it seems. Whether it is born of fear or something else I don't know. Or maybe I just happen to hear about more extreme Christians and their beliefs? I know I have to be quiet a lot when around my birth family because some of the things they say and believe horrify me at times. Mostly I see a majority of Christians are just pompous in their belief that their brand of Christianity is the right one and their interpretation the only one that is accurate. To say that one branch of Christianity is more 'Christian' or has the more right doctrine than another is imo pompous and if it wasn't so ignorant, humorous. It's an argument over which definition of supernatural is correct when it is most likely neither is. I don't see Westboro church as just an extreme element within Christianity, but more the far end of a continuum. I too am alarmed by things that many Christians say, about gays, Muslims, political correctness, secular humanism, evolution, atheists, Mormons, Obama, and on and on. Strong among them demonizing of the other is, as Yoda might say. I think it's a kind of perverse, non-compassionate Christian tribalism that then works backward to find Biblical and theological support. What does this say to non-Christians? Nothing good that's for sure, and young, thoughtful, compassionate Christians will only leave the religion as a result. This is the dark side of Christianity, and really, every religion has this kind of dark side, tribalism, to it.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 6, 2014 12:17:24 GMT -5
No you can't penetrate those. And in my experience that's often what it comes down to when talking about things that require faith. There is no other place to go with things like that. He is an example of extreme, I do agree. But there are getting to be more and more extreme beliefs in Christianity it seems. Whether it is born of fear or something else I don't know. Or maybe I just happen to hear about more extreme Christians and their beliefs? I know I have to be quiet a lot when around my birth family because some of the things they say and believe horrify me at times. Mostly I see a majority of Christians are just pompous in their belief that their brand of Christianity is the right one and their interpretation the only one that is accurate. To say that one branch of Christianity is more 'Christian' or has the more right doctrine than another is imo pompous and if it wasn't so ignorant, humorous. It's an argument over which definition of supernatural is correct when it is most likely neither is. I don't see Westboro church as just an extreme element within Christianity, but more the far end of a continuum. I too am alarmed by things that many Christians say, about gays, Muslims, political correctness, secular humanism, evolution, atheists, Mormons, Obama, and on and on. Strong among them demonizing of the other is, as Yoda might say. I think it's a kind of perverse, non-compassionate Christian tribalism that then works backward to find Biblical and theological support. What does this say to non-Christians? Nothing good that's for sure, and young, thoughtful, compassionate Christians will only leave the religion as a result. This is the dark side of Christianity, and really, every religion has this kind of dark side, tribalism, to it. What Hat ~ I was thinking along similar lines myself. Although there are certain criteria that most Christians agree upon which are regarded as the basics of Christianity, some churches and religious groups take things too far and neglect what really constitute sound doctrine regarding our relationship to mankind. Fixit brought out in an earlier post some of these qualities, which I feel are worthy of being noted as far as getting along with one another and being more like our brother's keeper as an encourager and not as an antagonist. Preachers who major in setting up walls and barriers I don't feel are really holding to the teachings of Christ. JMT
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 6, 2014 12:43:58 GMT -5
So how is what you wrote fixit at odds with what Irvine Grey quoted. I am sure he believes and practices what is written in your post too. Do you think your post nullifies his post or are both compatible? We can challenge doctrine and still have all those qualities. Do you think Paul was lacking love, sound doctrine, self control etc when he wrote these letters to the Christians. Why would you quote these verses to Grey but not to What Hat? But the doctrine that fixit quoted is not what Grey used to assess the friends. Grey used Bebbington's quadrilateral to assess the friends. I have no objection to Bebbington's quadrilateral as a method of classifying denominations ... but as a method of assessing whether doctrine is sound? No. What Hat ~ I realize that Irvine Grey used Bebbington's Quadrilateral to assess the 2x2's regarding their claim of being an evangelical movement by comparison to the 18th century revivals. Since William Irvine's claim to fame was his restoring the church back to its original evangelical focus, it's only reasonable thate the 2x2's should meet these requirements, in my opinion?
However, according to this basic comparison, it doesn't take long to see that the 2x2's don't meet these requirements in all four areas. For starters, they only take certain scriptures to support their premise and ignore others that teach differently. Also, they show no interest in charitable work within the world and discourage it. As far as the teaching of the Cross and Christ in relation to our salvation, the workers and meetings within the home has substituted in its place. Finally, the need of repentance and turning to God for forgiveness of our sins and walking in newness of life in Christ is not even stressed. Instead they advocate following the rules of the workers and showing our willingness to conform to the worker's desires in dress and actions and refraining from any questioning of their authority.
That being said, there are also a number of mainline churches that would probably not meet this criteria as an evangelical movement today either, however they do hold to the basic tenets of Christianity. However, teaching sound doctrine is something that should be seen within any church claiming to be Christian today. If such is missing from the equation, perhaps folks should be questioning their loyalty to such groups?
www.gotquestions.org/Christianity.html What is Christianity and what do Christians believe? (excerpt)
www.evangelicalfellowship.ca/page.aspx?pid=775 Bebbington's Quadrilateral
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 6, 2014 12:48:59 GMT -5
What's really sad is that people think squabbling over doctrine is of very much relevance at all. This ex worker must have a large ego to think he can come between God and his will for individuals. What Hat I find it sad that you so easily dismiss the importance of doctrine and especially sound doctrine. Your attitude stands in stark contrast to the exhortations we find in Scripture. Here are a few of them: [17] I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV) [3] As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [5] The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (1 Timothy 1:3-5 ESV) [6] If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. (1 Timothy 4:6 ESV) [3] If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, [5] and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Timothy 6:3-5 ESV) [9] He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV) [1] But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1 ESV) Thank you, Irvine! I was kind of leary to write some of these things when I'd read what hat's response....actually he had shocked me! and I wasn't really sure what he was getting at......
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 6, 2014 13:02:52 GMT -5
No you can't penetrate those. And in my experience that's often what it comes down to when talking about things that require faith. There is no other place to go with things like that. He is an example of extreme, I do agree. But there are getting to be more and more extreme beliefs in Christianity it seems. Whether it is born of fear or something else I don't know. Or maybe I just happen to hear about more extreme Christians and their beliefs? I know I have to be quiet a lot when around my birth family because some of the things they say and believe horrify me at times. Mostly I see a majority of Christians are just pompous in their belief that their brand of Christianity is the right one and their interpretation the only one that is accurate. To say that one branch of Christianity is more 'Christian' or has the more right doctrine than another is imo pompous and if it wasn't so ignorant, humorous. It's an argument over which definition of supernatural is correct when it is most likely neither is. I don't see Westboro church as just an extreme element within Christianity, but more the far end of a continuum. I too am alarmed by things that many Christians say, about gays, Muslims, political correctness, secular humanism, evolution, atheists, Mormons, Obama, and on and on. Strong among them demonizing of the other is, as Yoda might say. I think it's a kind of perverse, non-compassionate Christian tribalism that then works backward to find Biblical and theological support. What does this say to non-Christians? Nothing good that's for sure, and young, thoughtful, compassionate Christians will only leave the religion as a result. This is the dark side of Christianity, and really, every religion has this kind of dark side, tribalism, to it. Thankfully I also know Christians that are not like that. And yes, the Westboro are extreme. I think part of the trend towards extreme is fear. Fear that God is punishing humanity because some of us aren't doing what they think God wants. Somehow killing the infidel makes life better for the devout? The guy that believes AIDS will be cured if we obey God and kill gays, is an example of this type of thinking. He seems to truly feel he's found the cure. ISIS is another example of ridding the world of the non believers for the sake of the believers. It seems that the more fearful people become the more they gravitate towards the extreme. I guess we've always had that mentality though. It's likely that mentality that started humans sacrificing other humans, usually the ones deemed pure, to the Gods.
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Dec 6, 2014 13:21:26 GMT -5
What Hat I find it sad that you so easily dismiss the importance of doctrine and especially sound doctrine. Your attitude stands in stark contrast to the exhortations we find in Scripture. Here are a few of them: [17] I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV) [3] As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [5] The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (1 Timothy 1:3-5 ESV) [6] If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. (1 Timothy 4:6 ESV) [3] If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, [5] and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Timothy 6:3-5 ESV) [9] He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV) [1] But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1 ESV) Thank you, Irvine! I was kind of leary to write some of these things when I'd read what hat's response....actually he had shocked me! and I wasn't really sure what he was getting at...... I am not sure he was either!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 6, 2014 13:50:56 GMT -5
Irvine ~ I addressed earlier what I thought was What Hat's point of view, although I can see how it could have been easily misinterpreted. He clarified himself by later referring to the scale you used to assess whether William Irvine's teachings were of an evangelical nature by the Bebbington quadrilateral and its relation to historical 18th century revivals. As can be easily seen by reviewing what Irvine and the workers taught and comparing it to this criteria, it's pretty apparent that the 2x2's fail in all four areas due to the things they stress as being important. Below is What Hat's statement regarding this fact.
Although the Bebbington quadrilateral does help to narrow the margin between denominations as being considered evangelical in their focus, it's focus is on structural characteristics and some central teaching, but does not stress Christian behaviors and beliefs that follow a conversion experience, which Fixit outlined in his post. In addition, although sound doctrine is closely related to sound biblical teachings, there's also the element of behavior involved here, too. JMT
What Hat shared...
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 6, 2014 14:32:52 GMT -5
How does the Westboro Baptist Church score with respect to the Bebbington quadrilateral?
How does the Westboro Baptist Church score with respect to what the Bible refers to as sound doctrine?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 6, 2014 15:38:45 GMT -5
What Hat I find it sad that you so easily dismiss the importance of doctrine and especially sound doctrine. Your attitude stands in stark contrast to the exhortations we find in Scripture. Here are a few of them: [17] I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. [18] For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naïve. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV) [3] As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, [4] nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. [5] The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. (1 Timothy 1:3-5 ESV) [6] If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. (1 Timothy 4:6 ESV) [3] If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, [4] he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, [5] and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1 Timothy 6:3-5 ESV) [9] He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV) [1] But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine. (Titus 2:1 ESV) Thank you, Irvine! I was kind of leary to write some of these things when I'd read what hat's response....actually he had shocked me! and I wasn't really sure what he was getting at...... As usual Irvine Grey completely twists what I said, and then answers that. All the better to stay on his high horse.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 6, 2014 15:50:00 GMT -5
How does the Westboro Baptist Church score with respect to the Bebbington quadrilateral? How does the Westboro Baptist Church score with respect to what the Bible refers to as sound doctrine? That's a very incisive and interesting point, fixit. Biblicism, evangelism, activism, and the centrality of the Cross. I'm sure Westboro has those down pat.
|
|