|
Post by What Hat on Dec 6, 2014 15:58:12 GMT -5
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
I think you're too hard on the friends. I don't see them as being much different than any other church - better in some ways, worse in others. Bebbington's quadrilateral is entirely weighted to a particular point of view of the Bible and the Christian life. It's based on a particular application of Jesus teaching, not on Jesus' teaching itself. Perhaps we should look at Jesus' quadrilateral. 1) Love God. 2) Love your neighbour. 3) More number 1. 4) More number 2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2014 16:51:59 GMT -5
What Hat - I agree with what you say about what you describe as "Jesus' quadrilateral". Except that it should reflect the "new" commandment that Jesus gave his disciples - that we should love one another as He has loved us (which goes way beyond just loving our neighbour). I like the George Eliot quote by the way - imho, the finest ending to any novel written in the English language.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 6, 2014 17:16:59 GMT -5
What Hat - I agree with what you say about what you describe as "Jesus' quadrilateral". Except that it should reflect the "new" commandment that Jesus gave his disciples - that we should love one another as He has loved us (which goes way beyond just loving our neighbour). I like the George Eliot quote by the way - imho, the finest ending to any novel written in the English language. True enough. Or, we can add to it, Jesus lesson on "who is my neighbour"?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 6, 2014 17:35:14 GMT -5
Everyone is our neighbor. Love is the only doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 6, 2014 22:56:29 GMT -5
Faune quoted the following:
****************************************************************************************************************************
Workers selected the hymns in our book, so it could be considered an approximate guide to what they believe and teach...
1. Biblicism: Hymn 281
"I need no book but Thine own word".
2. Crucicentrism: Hymn 214
"If it had not been the Lord Who had died my soul to save. Then a sad and Christ-less heart Would have found a hope-less grave."
3. Activism: Hymn 215
Give me a heart that knows no guile, A heart forgiving all the while, A heart that reaches to do a deed, And stoops to help a friend in need. I want to feel the pain My neighbours often know And lend a helping hand If he be friend or foe. I want to share the loss In every weal or woe And have a tender heart, where'er I go.
4. Conversionism: Hymn 27
He left His home in glory To die on Calvary; I cannot help but love Him, Because He first loved me.
My soul was heavy burdened, And sorrow filled my heart: Sin's fearful condemnation, My portion and my part. The message came from heaven, "I died your soul to free;" I cannot help but love Him, Because He first loved me.
How great my consolation! The Lamb of God has died; In Him I am accepted, Forgiven, sanctified.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 6, 2014 23:24:17 GMT -5
What Hat - I agree with what you say about what you describe as "Jesus' quadrilateral". Except that it should reflect the "new" commandment that Jesus gave his disciples - that we should love one another as He has loved us (which goes way beyond just loving our neighbour). I like the George Eliot quote by the way - imho, the finest ending to any novel written in the English language. Finlandia ~ I agree that love is the ultimate language here that demonstrates our humanity. My earlier post was to define a few of these views for others as they related to this thread. However, I also agree that sound doctrine goes beyond a description of an evangelical movement and deals more with living out what we believe to be true in regards to God's will for our life.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 6, 2014 23:26:15 GMT -5
What I find so amazing is that "sound doctrine" is what any one person believes in their particular Christian church at a particular time in history!
Is it any wonder that there 1000's of different Christian denominations in the world?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 6, 2014 23:30:59 GMT -5
Faune quoted the following: **************************************************************************************************************************** Workers selected the hymns in our book, so it could be considered an approximate guide to what they believe and teach... 1. Biblicism: Hymn 281 "I need no book but Thine own word". 2. Crucicentrism: Hymn 214 "If it had not been the Lord Who had died my soul to save. Then a sad and Christ-less heart Would have found a hope-less grave." 3. Activism: Hymn 215 Give me a heart that knows no guile, A heart forgiving all the while, A heart that reaches to do a deed, And stoops to help a friend in need. I want to feel the pain My neighbours often know And lend a helping hand If he be friend or foe. I want to share the loss In every weal or woe And have a tender heart, where'er I go. 4. Conversionism: Hymn 27 He left His home in glory To die on Calvary; I cannot help but love Him, Because He first loved me. My soul was heavy burdened, And sorrow filled my heart: Sin's fearful condemnation, My portion and my part. The message came from heaven, "I died your soul to free;" I cannot help but love Him, Because He first loved me. How great my consolation! The Lamb of God has died; In Him I am accepted, Forgiven, sanctified. Fixit ~ Although these hymns may seem to promote the workers' views, do you really believe they teach this as gospel truth within the meetings? I supplied my own views in all honesty based upon what I noticed for myself over a period of 30 years within the 2x2's. However, the central message of Jesus and the Cross and what it meant to humanity was something I can't recall hearing much about in meetings. The focus was more upon the workers and the meetings in the home as being their gospel message and excluding anybody else outside their group. That was not the message of Jesus, IMHO, as you can see from my previous quote below.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 7, 2014 0:09:10 GMT -5
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 been 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? If you take the word "doctrine" to mean "teaching" then it includes whatever any particular group of Christians chooses to define it as. I prefer to consider the scriptural meaning of the word "doctrine", which can be quite different to the meaning chosen by a group to bash other groups. I agree that most of your criticism against friends and workers does apply to some extent, but it could be argued that the opposite applies also i.e. things that you say don't happen certainly do happen but not universally. Examples:1. Its a long time since I've heard charitable works being discouraged, and I know a lot of charitable work is done by professing folks. 2. The need of repentance and turning to God for forgiveness of our sins and walking in newness of life in Christ is definitely stressed. 3. The teaching of the Cross and Christ in relation to our salvation is definitely taught, and features all through the hymns in our book. Your criticism would be fair if you recognised that the failings are not universal throughout the movement.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 7, 2014 6:11:02 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!" I do mean this. Once I did try to 'profess'. I have learned over the years it is better to 'confess'. In other words, the most pressing aspect of salvation isn't my state, desire, or prerogative but God's. It's unfortunate the 2x2's and Christendom generally fail to grasp the theological importance of Election. The biblical doctrine of Election neutralizes the humanistic tendency towards competition, and preserves the imperative of God's intention and purposes.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 7, 2014 9:21:48 GMT -5
Faune quoted the following: **************************************************************************************************************************** Workers selected the hymns in our book, so it could be considered an approximate guide to what they believe and teach... 1. Biblicism: Hymn 281 "I need no book but Thine own word". 2. Crucicentrism: Hymn 214 "If it had not been the Lord Who had died my soul to save. Then a sad and Christ-less heart Would have found a hope-less grave." 3. Activism: Hymn 215 Give me a heart that knows no guile, A heart forgiving all the while, A heart that reaches to do a deed, And stoops to help a friend in need. I want to feel the pain My neighbours often know And lend a helping hand If he be friend or foe. I want to share the loss In every weal or woe And have a tender heart, where'er I go. 4. Conversionism: Hymn 27 He left His home in glory To die on Calvary; I cannot help but love Him, Because He first loved me. My soul was heavy burdened, And sorrow filled my heart: Sin's fearful condemnation, My portion and my part. The message came from heaven, "I died your soul to free;" I cannot help but love Him, Because He first loved me. How great my consolation! The Lamb of God has died; In Him I am accepted, Forgiven, sanctified. Fixit ~ Although these hymns may seem to promote the workers' views, do you really believe they teach this as gospel truth within the meetings? I supplied my own views in all honesty based upon what I noticed for myself over a period of 30 years within the 2x2's. However, the central message of Jesus and the Cross and what it meant to humanity was something I can't recall hearing much about in meetings. The focus was more upon the workers and the meetings in the home as being their gospel message and excluding anybody else outside their group. That was not the message of Jesus, IMHO, as you can see from my previous quote below.
We know the friends have their issues, but to me, it's absurd to evaluate one group's dogma on the basis of another group's dogma, and conclude, as a result, that that makes the group "a dangerous cult". Essentially because they don't preach what I preach. And it's also a surprise to me that that kind of bickering about dogma is allowed to take place in a formal academic setting. I thought Ireland was getting past all that, but evidently not. And when said "high priest" finds a reformed sycophant who *regrets* his past ways in favour of a new and better way that is just the old way in a different skin, to be specific, one exclusive mode of thinking substituted for another, then it all becomes a bit too precious for my liking. It's a charade, in other words. If you're going to deem a group a "dangerous cult" then make the analysis the way journalists make it ... on the basis of specific harmful effects. That is, find some evidence of suicide pacts, widespread bizarre sexual practices, and Satanic rituals involving sharp knives and large insects. Failing that evidence, the argument is weak. More on "the cross" later if I can find some time.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 7, 2014 12:39:04 GMT -5
Everyone is our neighbor. Love is the only doctrine. Ac tually Love was the Father's only doctrine in the giving of all 12 commandments! His love was also what brought salvation to the Gentile nations and also the same salvation is offered to the children of Israel....those CofI's will have to return to God via the same salvation we all know about....we are wild branches grafted into the parent plant, the CoI's were the natural branches which were pruned away due to disobedience which of course is the failure of the love in their hearts toward the Father and the Son and can also include the failure of that love toward one another...fighting one another unto the death like dogs....that still was a problem apparently in the New Testament for Paul wrote that it was alright to disagree with one another but to take care not to become dogs and slay one another.....otherwords, disagreements will come and go but the love for one another should always remain. Also the Good Samaritan story shows that Jesus was trying to make the point to those who listened that the one who labored with love toward someone else would not necessarily be the person who lived in the tabernacle next to us.... John wrote in his epistle "God is love." So yes, Love cover the doctrine of God.....Love is what moved God to love the world so that He gave His only begotten Son so that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 7, 2014 12:58:09 GMT -5
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. What Hat! I'm getting more shocked by you even now! I don't think Irvine is on his high horse...I think the thing of it is that Irvine knows the "doctrine" that some feel would cover all that was said prior. I didn't see much of his posting that was "his thoughts or words" but most all was scriptural and to the point of the discussion or the interpretation that some of us got from your wording. I'm sorry IF we've misinterpreted you, but I'm more sorry that it would be you actually were meaning what we took you to be meaning! I found it very strange coming from you.....and I know sometimes we change in different directions when we exit the 2x2 religion and start experimenting with other religious thoughts and ways! Sometimes we actually do get confused because we're actually interpreting something from our well indoctrinated 2x2 way of thinking. But even I didn't see that in what you said! Is it possible that some of us want to repudiate all of what Irvine says just because he has called the 2x2 a dangerous cult?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 7, 2014 14:56:58 GMT -5
As usual Irvine Grey completely twists what I said, and then answers that. All the better to stay on his high horse. What Hat! I'm getting more shocked by you even now! I don't think Irvine is on his high horse...I think the thing of it is that Irvine knows the "doctrine" that some feel would cover all that was said prior. I didn't see much of his posting that was "his thoughts or words" but most all was scriptural and to the point of the discussion or the interpretation that some of us got from your wording. I'm sorry IF we've misinterpreted you, but I'm more sorry that it would be you actually were meaning what we took you to be meaning! I found it very strange coming from you.....and I know sometimes we change in different directions when we exit the 2x2 religion and start experimenting with other religious thoughts and ways! Sometimes we actually do get confused because we're actually interpreting something from our well indoctrinated 2x2 way of thinking. But even I didn't see that in what you said! Is it possible that some of us want to repudiate all of what Irvine says just because he has called the 2x2 a dangerous cult? To my mind, being critical of "squabbling over doctrine" is very different from being critical of "doctrine" itself. I've already stated my problem with his response in a few posts above, so won't repeat here. Nothing personal when I say Irvine Grey is on his "high horse". It's a common mode of discourse for many Christians, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 7, 2014 16:55:38 GMT -5
What Hat! I'm getting more shocked by you even now! I don't think Irvine is on his high horse...I think the thing of it is that Irvine knows the "doctrine" that some feel would cover all that was said prior. I didn't see much of his posting that was "his thoughts or words" but most all was scriptural and to the point of the discussion or the interpretation that some of us got from your wording. I'm sorry IF we've misinterpreted you, but I'm more sorry that it would be you actually were meaning what we took you to be meaning! I found it very strange coming from you.....and I know sometimes we change in different directions when we exit the 2x2 religion and start experimenting with other religious thoughts and ways! Sometimes we actually do get confused because we're actually interpreting something from our well indoctrinated 2x2 way of thinking. But even I didn't see that in what you said! Is it possible that some of us want to repudiate all of what Irvine says just because he has called the 2x2 a dangerous cult? To my mind, being critical of "squabbling over doctrine" is very different from being critical of "doctrine" itself. I've already stated my problem with his response in a few posts above, so won't repeat here. Nothing personal when I say Irvine Grey is on his "high horse". It's a common mode of discourse for many Christians, I'm afraid. The word "doctrine" is a bit like the word "cult" in that it's too imprecise for a discussion like this. Perhaps "religious theory" woud work better.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 7, 2014 17:16:27 GMT -5
What Hat! I'm getting more shocked by you even now! I don't think Irvine is on his high horse...I think the thing of it is that Irvine knows the "doctrine" that some feel would cover all that was said prior. I didn't see much of his posting that was "his thoughts or words" but most all was scriptural and to the point of the discussion or the interpretation that some of us got from your wording. I'm sorry IF we've misinterpreted you, but I'm more sorry that it would be you actually were meaning what we took you to be meaning! I found it very strange coming from you.....and I know sometimes we change in different directions when we exit the 2x2 religion and start experimenting with other religious thoughts and ways! Sometimes we actually do get confused because we're actually interpreting something from our well indoctrinated 2x2 way of thinking. But even I didn't see that in what you said! Is it possible that some of us want to repudiate all of what Irvine says just because he has called the 2x2 a dangerous cult? To my mind, being critical of "squabbling over doctrine" is very different from being critical of "doctrine" itself. I've already stated my problem with his response in a few posts above, so won't repeat here. Nothing personal when I say Irvine Grey is on his "high horse". It's a common mode of discourse for many Christians, I'm afraid. Do I detect some self righteousness here, WH? Are you somewhat better than other Christians. Is it that anyone who thinks differently from you on their high horse?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 7, 2014 17:34:59 GMT -5
To my mind, being critical of "squabbling over doctrine" is very different from being critical of "doctrine" itself. I've already stated my problem with his response in a few posts above, so won't repeat here. Nothing personal when I say Irvine Grey is on his "high horse". It's a common mode of discourse for many Christians, I'm afraid. Do I detect some self righteousness here, WH? Are you somewhat better than other Christians. Is it that anyone who thinks differently from you on their high horse? If more Christians were like What hat, there might be more Christians. I am not Christian or any religion but I do find Irvine Greys attitude about other Christians to be quite unfortunate.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Dec 7, 2014 17:36:52 GMT -5
It is almost 18 months since the launch of Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement. From an initial print run of 1500 I have around 300 left and that is very satisfactory. While a large number have been sold through bookshops mainly in Ireland and considerable via Amazon and my own website, www.irvinegrey.comI am surprised by the large number that have gone to the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Quite a few have been ordered by the sociology and theology faculties of major universities in various locations. Maybe it is time to think of a follow-up work using the material from the various responses I have had, both negative and positive! Irvine, I would be just as interested in reading your second book as I was the first. It made me think hard about why I believe as I do.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 7, 2014 18:28:37 GMT -5
Snow, Christianity is not about appeasing the multitudes. It is about faith in God. It is a personal relationship between you and God. It is an individual thing between you and God.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 7, 2014 18:39:21 GMT -5
Snow, Christianity is not about appeasing the multitudes. It is about faith in God. It is a personal relationship between you and God. It is an individual thing between you and God. If it is a personal relationship between you and God then why do individuals seem to think they can say the personal relationship someone else has with God is wrong? Seems to me that something personal shouldn't be something anyone can question as being right or wrong. That is what different denominations do though. How can anyone be so sure of their beliefs that they can call others wrong for their beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Dec 7, 2014 19:48:40 GMT -5
You are talking about 2 different things, Snow. You said if there were more Christians like WH then there might be more Christians. It does not mean that we cannot question someones beliefs. I disagree that if there were more like WH there might be more Christians. If people wanted to be like him then there is nothing to stop them from believing like him. So which is more popular - his brand or the mainstream brand?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 7, 2014 19:59:44 GMT -5
To my mind, being critical of "squabbling over doctrine" is very different from being critical of "doctrine" itself. I've already stated my problem with his response in a few posts above, so won't repeat here. Nothing personal when I say Irvine Grey is on his "high horse". It's a common mode of discourse for many Christians, I'm afraid. The word "doctrine" is a bit like the word "cult" in that it's too imprecise for a discussion like this. Perhaps "religious theory" woud work better. Yes, perhaps so....however then wouldn't we start getting into the denominational differences more instead of looking directly at the scriptural?
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 7, 2014 20:03:14 GMT -5
What Hat! I'm getting more shocked by you even now! I don't think Irvine is on his high horse...I think the thing of it is that Irvine knows the "doctrine" that some feel would cover all that was said prior. I didn't see much of his posting that was "his thoughts or words" but most all was scriptural and to the point of the discussion or the interpretation that some of us got from your wording. I'm sorry IF we've misinterpreted you, but I'm more sorry that it would be you actually were meaning what we took you to be meaning! I found it very strange coming from you.....and I know sometimes we change in different directions when we exit the 2x2 religion and start experimenting with other religious thoughts and ways! Sometimes we actually do get confused because we're actually interpreting something from our well indoctrinated 2x2 way of thinking. But even I didn't see that in what you said! Is it possible that some of us want to repudiate all of what Irvine says just because he has called the 2x2 a dangerous cult? To my mind, being critical of "squabbling over doctrine" is very different from being critical of "doctrine" itself. I've already stated my problem with his response in a few posts above, so won't repeat here. Nothing personal when I say Irvine Grey is on his "high horse". It's a common mode of discourse for many Christians, I'm afraid. I'm sorry then some of us, particularly myself, took your saying "high horse" meant you were being quite negative about the gentleman! I think again we get into differences on what "high horse" may mean and mainly how it is used. In my lifespan and in this area, when someone speaks about someone being on their high horse they are being very derogatory and often very cynical and down on whom they are speaking of! It is usually said with tones that make the meaning very negative to those who hear it! Esp. the one being talked about!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 7, 2014 20:09:27 GMT -5
You are talking about 2 different things, Snow. You said if there were more Christians like WH then there might be more Christians. It does not mean that we cannot question someones beliefs. I disagree that if there were more like WH there might be more Christians. If people wanted to be like him then there is nothing to stop them from believing like him. So which is more popular - his brand or the mainstream brand? As to What Hat's brand of Christianity, I'm under the impression that perhaps he doesn't have a particular "brand" of Christianity, but is striving to keep in the middle of the road, so to speak. I think this may be what Snow has witnessed in What Hat, particularly while he was still professing........ Perhaps his wording is something he meant as not being so negative, but like in my experiences in life, that said wording is derogatory and very cynical towards someone! Again we come up against what? Perhaps a colloquial difference of lanquage usuages?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 7, 2014 21:05:17 GMT -5
Everyone is our neighbor. Love is the only doctrine. Ac tually Love was the Father's only doctrine in the giving of all 12 commandments! Actually, Love was NOT god's only doctrine in the giving of all 12 commandments! The 10 Commandments List, 1 You shall have no other gods before Me. 2 You shall not make idols. 3 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. 4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 5 Honor your father and your mother. 6 You shall not murder. 7 You shall not commit adultery. 8 You shall not steal. 9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10 You shall not covet. The first four are all about god himself!
They Had nothing to do with "love" in how to treat one another- It was just all about HIMSELF! talk about egotistical! The last four aren't about loving others. It is things you DON'T DO if you want to live in social group that trusts one another!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 7, 2014 21:08:02 GMT -5
You are talking about 2 different things, Snow. You said if there were more Christians like WH then there might be more Christians. It does not mean that we cannot question someones beliefs. I disagree that if there were more like WH there might be more Christians. If people wanted to be like him then there is nothing to stop them from believing like him. So which is more popular - his brand or the mainstream brand? More Christians with a mindset that What Hat has might attract more people to the religion. When people listen to the exclusive rhetoric that some Christians seem to think is okay, it drives people away from Christianity. I would think Jesus might be a tad perturbed if his followers were hindering his goal of bring more people to him, don't you think? And, it's the exclusive talk and the mindset that one denomination is 'more right' than another that turns most people away from Christianity and limits its attraction for those who aren't a Christian. You were the one that brought up the relationship with God being a personal one. I expanded on your thought and asked why it was okay to be derogatory about someone's personal beliefs if it was a personal relationship? No one can be absolutely sure they have the only 'right way' to worship or have a relationship with God. So based on that fact, why do people seem to think it's okay to say one way is wrong and the other is right? If they are still trying to worship God and do what they feel is right, what does it matter if they don't have the exact same way of doing that. I would think that there are as many ways to worship God as there are people. I would imagine each relationship is not only personal, but also unique.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 7, 2014 21:17:38 GMT -5
You are talking about 2 different things, Snow. You said if there were more Christians like WH then there might be more Christians. It does not mean that we cannot question someones beliefs. I disagree that if there were more like WH there might be more Christians. If people wanted to be like him then there is nothing to stop them from believing like him. So which is more popular - his brand or the mainstream brand? As to What Hat's brand of Christianity, I'm under the impression that perhaps he doesn't have a particular "brand" of Christianity, but is striving to keep in the middle of the road, so to speak. I think this may be what Snow has witnessed in What Hat, particularly while he was still professing........ Perhaps his wording is something he meant as not being so negative, but like in my experiences in life, that said wording is derogatory and very cynical towards someone! Again we come up against what? Perhaps a colloquial difference of lanquage usuages? STR, I see What Hat as worshiping the Christian God but not expecting anyone else to do it his way. I admire that. I have no problem with a belief in a God, and I see it as a very personal thing. What I don't admire is when people criticize how someone else views their God. I really don't see anything wrong with the way the 2x2 group see God and I definitely don't believe it comes close to being a cult as Mr. Grey stated. Is it perfect? Of course not. But neither is any other denomination. I figure if the Christian God sees his people striving with all their heart to love him and live in a way that honors him, I don't think he cares one iota whether they understand the Trinity Doctrine or not. And that is pretty much the gist of what is the big doctrine war. Those who believe God is the Trinity and those who do not. I know you now believe in the Trinity but I also know that you don't judge people the same as some who declare that you will go to hell if you don't believe 'correctly'. I admire that in you too.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 7, 2014 21:22:44 GMT -5
To my mind, being critical of "squabbling over doctrine" is very different from being critical of "doctrine" itself. I've already stated my problem with his response in a few posts above, so won't repeat here. Nothing personal when I say Irvine Grey is on his "high horse". It's a common mode of discourse for many Christians, I'm afraid. Do I detect some self righteousness here, WH? Are you somewhat better than other Christians. Is it that anyone who thinks differently from you on their high horse? Around here, just Irvine Grey.
|
|