|
Post by Zorro on Jul 29, 2007 0:48:11 GMT -5
Common ground? hmmmm... here are some on the lists.
Jesus Christ is our Savior. We believe in the Itinerant ministry of Jesus and the apostles are for today. Emblems are to be held in the homes of the believers, we believe in the words of God. We believe in Jesus' atonement for our sins. We believe Jesus is the Son of God who died and became our Redeemer. We believe in immersion baptism.
We believe in God the Father, Jesus the Son or the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit is our teacher, comforter send from God to guide, help, and preserving the church.
Very good, that's what I'm driving at.
I believe that Jesus is my Savior, also. I believe in his atonement for my sins. I also believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit teaching, guiding, helping and preserving the church. I do not believe that the church is defined by an itinerent ministry. So, is our ability to have fellowship defined by agreement in the form of worship.....or by shared redemption?
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 29, 2007 1:12:14 GMT -5
I believe in the whole package! Shared the same redemption Jesus as our redeemer, God the Father is the Lord of ALL, and the Holy Spirit is also God. The message and the messengers must be sent from God, the form of worship like in the New Testament, the Itinerant ministry, having fellowship with our brethren, believing those who are truly called by God are servants of God in our fellowship, upholding the teachings of Jesus... as I said the whole package! Unfortunately, that's NOT the "whole package". The "whole package" also includes doctrines taught in scripture. The bottom line is that there is no unity at all regarding basic, orthodox doctrines between you and the others...or the fellowship as a whole. It is simply a marvel that this can be overlooked, yet you can be content that you can stand united in defending the form of worship....the only common ground you can claim as your own. You see, if you claim redemption as the common ground of Christians, you'd have to share that with me.....and countless others not in the F&Ws fellowship. That's it for me tonight...that's all I wanted to say. Now I get to go sleep in a tent in the front yard with my grandkids....good times
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 29, 2007 1:22:12 GMT -5
what part of the scriptures do we see "the form of worship" explicitly laid out for worshipers to follow?
Oh wait... there are no scriptures that explicitly talk about "the form of worship"... even "the form of worship" we see int he 2x2 fellowship...
Funny...
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 29, 2007 6:19:42 GMT -5
Zorro,
[You Wrote] I chose those 5 specific doctrines to make a very specific point. I know that you defend all five points. Past history has clearly demonstrated that none of the other three posters would agree with all five. In fact, one would agree with none of them. So the question is...."what do we do with that?"
My perspective is admittedly different from others, because for over half a decade, I have decided it is wrong to reject the body of historical Christianity, or indeed, to remain ignorant of Church History and its spectrum of theological debates. A quote from a recent educators' magazine, which is usually fully of sentimental claptrap, springs to mind, "He who refuses to learn history, must remain forever a child", and I think this is somewhat relevant to knowing the details of Christianity, which is not a Faith that has sprung, suddenly and without reason, from nowhere.
Hence I have read and followed the actions of the figures of history who have thought deeply - and it must be said, piously - about the message and mission of Jesus Christ. I think of Augustine of Hippo. His Confessions are a study in childlike humility and self-awareness of original sinfulness. When I think of Augustine, it helps me to examine my own nature in greater clarity, and of course, I share in common with Augustine the same temptations and weaknesses (in full measure). I admire Athanasius for his defence of the diety of Christ against Arius, and I have read the wonderful sermon of Bishop Melito on the Passover. I admire Luther (and have enjoyed the film), I think highly of Wycliff and the other Reformers.
Consequently, I have thought deeply about the writings of these men. I have concluded, as a result, that one must throw their hat on the Protestant side of Christianity, and that within Protestantism, there is a much smaller body which could be properly described as orthodox in that they have a consistent faith that is informed by the Bible. I reject solo scriptura - that a man and the good ol' book can alone gain all the understanding that is required; but I do accept sola scriptura in the sense that while scripture is our greatest authority, there is still a place to be guided by the church and by others.
I know that there are disagreements between myself and my fellow apologists. Bert, for example, accepts evolution which I reject in the strongest possible terms. Nathan, for instance, believes in the continuation of the fellowship from antiquity, which I also reject. But this does not mean to say that we do not share enough in common in order to achieve a common purpose.
[Zorro Wrote] My point is that it's a slippery slope when we define our ability to have fellowship with one another by agreement in doctrines. The fact is that of the five points listed, the person that would most closely align with your beliefs would be.....me - an ex. So again, what do we do with that?
It troubles me that there is such widely divergent beliefs in the fellowship. Indeed, if some of the ex-2x2s are to be believed, there are more than a few heterodox thinkers within the pale of the Church. Part of me would like to see a formulation of a formal register of beliefs - even if it was short and simple, and relatively undogmatic - but the other part of me recognises that such a declaration would ultimately have a divisive effect on the friends, and remove one of the best things about the fellowship: the freedom of conscience of the individual.
Our fellowship simply is not based on unified doctrine. That we agree. It is based on a less tangible spiritual quality, and yes, a format of worship, with the rest left entirely at the individual's discretion. There is much to be said for this.
Moreover, I have said consistently that I believe salvation is quite possible outside of the Church (though not outside of Christ), and for the record, I have always counted you as a redeemed Christian of high moral character. I may have made this point previously, but I think it deserves to be said again.
[Zorro Wrote] I'm not saying that we shouldn't have passion in what we believe, quite the contrary. But the bottom line is that regarding fellowship, we are foolish to believe that the breakthrough to true fellowship is when we can sit together and celebrate our piousness, our righteousness, our agreement on doctrine, our agreement on format of corporate worship - all the while hiding the reality of our sinfulness.
I fully agree with you. Even thinking of such an experience leaves me feeling sick at the thought. I know I have something of a reputation among the friends (at least, I did) for being hard on myself in the meetings, because I confess my sins and consistently maintain that there is nothing good that dwells within us. I consistently speak about being "dead in trespasses and sins" (not merely "sick" or "disabled" by sin) because for me this has been a real experience. I am persuaded of my need for God, and therefore I speak.
[Zorro Wrote] The breakthrough to true fellowship is when we can sit together and celebrate our redemption (see Romans 14). That is the true common ground we all can share. I know that you believe that, and I think that most people do, for that matter. The problem is that in the midst of the ongoing posturing on the board, this most fundamental truth of God can get completely lost. I'm as guilty as the next guy, and honestly, it makes me weary. Good to chat with you
We are in agreement. It is a good word - "posturing" - and I also freely admit that I am guilty as charged on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Visiting on Jul 29, 2007 8:09:09 GMT -5
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."
Although we can help each other along the journey, we must all stand before god as individuals. God gives different people different levels of understanding depeding on their capabilities and thus there will not be perfect agreement in the beliefs between gods people.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 29, 2007 9:27:03 GMT -5
That makes no sense to me at all. Varying depth of understanding? Perhaps. Diametrically opposed understanding? That most certainly does not originate from any benevolent god.
|
|
|
Post by Gods people are on Jul 29, 2007 9:39:58 GMT -5
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Although we can help each other along the journey, we must all stand before god as individuals. God gives different people different levels of understanding depeding on their capabilities and thus there will not be perfect agreement in the beliefs between gods people. According to your understanding, exactly who are God's people? Are they (God's people) restricted to a specific organization, or are the all Christians? How broad or narrow a group is included in "God's people"? In other words, are you attempting to explain why there is lack of agreement among indivual Friends, or for example why there is lack of agreement between the Friends and the Baptists and the Lutherans and the Methodists and the Presberterians, etc?
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 29, 2007 13:56:04 GMT -5
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Although we can help each other along the journey, we must all stand before god as individuals. God gives different people different levels of understanding depeding on their capabilities and thus there will not be perfect agreement in the beliefs between gods people. According to your understanding, exactly who are God's people? Are they (God's people) restricted to a specific organization, or are the all Christians? How broad or narrow a group is included in "God's people"? In other words, are you attempting to explain why there is lack of agreement among indivual Friends, or for example why there is lack of agreement between the Friends and the Baptists and the Lutherans and the Methodists and the Presberterians, etc? Hey we all know who they are. They are the ones who only meet in houses and rented hall rooms, right. ;)
|
|
|
Post by Brenda99 on Jul 29, 2007 13:58:31 GMT -5
Hey we all know who they are. They are the ones who only meet in houses and rented hall rooms, right. ;) Probably more likely that it's them rather than the losers who spend all their time on the TMB judging those whom they consider as too judgmental. ::)
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 29, 2007 14:13:25 GMT -5
Hey we all know who they are. They are the ones who only meet in houses and rented hall rooms, right. ;) Probably more likely that it's them rather than the losers who spend all their time on the TMB judging those whom they consider as too judgmental. ::) Hey did you go to the House today? Humm I wonder where you fit in all this? :o
|
|
|
Post by Tarzan on Jul 29, 2007 22:09:24 GMT -5
I was shocked today to learn that there are absolutely no friends on the internet. Tonight, the overseer in our state said "anyone who spends time looking at things on the internet about our fellowship is not a child of God because they are not feeding on the things of God". So bert, prue, Nathan, GloryInTruth, WantToBeWithGod, et al..... sorry t' shock you like this, but I thought you outta know - yer with the rest of us now!!!!!!! That great more ex's Welcome to the jungle........ ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by I aghhhhhree on Jul 29, 2007 23:30:49 GMT -5
How to be one with disunity at meetings.
Agree that lieing is OK Everyone has different "perspectives" of God Don't talk about differences.
I arghhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeee
|
|
|
Post by Visiting on Jul 31, 2007 9:14:33 GMT -5
"Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Although we can help each other along the journey, we must all stand before god as individuals. God gives different people different levels of understanding depeding on their capabilities and thus there will not be perfect agreement in the beliefs between gods people. According to your understanding, exactly who are God's people? Are they (God's people) restricted to a specific organization, or are the all Christians? How broad or narrow a group is included in "God's people"? In other words, are you attempting to explain why there is lack of agreement among indivual Friends, or for example why there is lack of agreement between the Friends and the Baptists and the Lutherans and the Methodists and the Presberterians, etc? God knows them that are his. I'm not in a position to judge any. I recieve help for my spiritual life from our fellowship meetings and gosple meetings but I also work with people who I consider to be Christian who are also helpful. So I guess that that there will be differences between Christian's in general, but I'm not here to judge who is right or wrong. But to remember that we must all stand alone before him.
|
|
|
Post by it takes on Jul 31, 2007 10:02:07 GMT -5
It sure did take GIT a long time to explain that he does not believe as nathan believes. They go to the same church yet their beliefs are in direct conflict.
Next thing you know one of them will be blaming this on the exes.
|
|