|
Post by What Hat on Dec 7, 2014 21:33:35 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. 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! Yes, it's a derogatory comment, but just about some of his posts. I'm not criticizing him as a person or his general character, as I don't know Irvine Grey. And I'm very unhappy with his book, but he's by no means the first that makes me feel that way.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 7, 2014 21:35:16 GMT -5
If we condemn self-righteousness, does that make us self-righteous?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 7, 2014 21:46:39 GMT -5
Is that anything like, I judge that you judge? When is it merely an observation?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 7, 2014 22:19:42 GMT -5
Jesus said he didn't judge - yet he made some rather scathing observations of religious leaders.
|
|
|
Post by christiansburg on Dec 8, 2014 8:54:37 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. Absolutely, you are telling me nothing new. I know what you say here is true. This is really one of the most satisfying things in life; having a personal relationship with God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2014 10:02:10 GMT -5
If we condemn self-righteousness, does that make us self-righteous? Hardly, not many folks I know condemn themselves knowingly; however, they are a few folks who will point a finger at you while two are pointing back at them.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 8, 2014 13:08:35 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. First, I need to address the previous post about the lack of love in the first 4 commandments. THEY are about love! Love of God! All through the OT God was continually seeking the evidence that the CofI loved Him with their whole hearts, minds, souls and strengths. Factually He said that to them over and over again. That is what those first commandments are all about the "love" that the humans have for God! All the other 6 ARE love of one another....simply because if we love one another, those last commandments will be automatically followed and those involved will have followed them without thought simply because love is in their heart, minds and souls for their God and their neighbors(brethren). I have to say from personal experience that I DO have a very personal relationship with the God of heaven! I've even bee through hell and I suspect perhaps at His behest, simply because it says that trials, tribulations worketh patience! You say we don't have "proof" that our relationship is personal with God. I think my experience in demanding from God that He show me over and over again that HE THOUGHT IT was wise for me to leave the 2x2 religion and His patience in doing just that over and over again...I told Him it would take either one big miracle or a bunch of different things...He used different things...but in a matter of a bit over 3 yrs. with Him showing me all during that time that His okay with the exit and with the evidence of that approval in those last weeks becoming more frequent and more attention-getting until it worked out that there were about 4 instances I could not go to mtg. due to weather and road c onditions. Since we don't usually have such kinds of weather issues over a couple of days here and there...this alone was a walloping big attention getting okay! Also a few years ago when things were really bad for me, I saw Jesus....I really did see him! He motioned for me to arise to be with him in the sky...I started my ascension to him and when I got close enough he opened his arms to pull me into his embrace and about the time I would have been even enough with him to do that, I lost that vision of Jesus but the unexplicable joy filled me for hours. I know now that that was the reason for the experience...it wasn't my time to go off the earth, but Jesus wanted me to taste of that which awaits us in heaven, and truthfully that vision and knowledge of that inexplicable joy has sustained me through some mighty hard tribulations! To me that is proof of a personal relationship with God....you probably will remember I believe in the Triune God....
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 8, 2014 13:30:42 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. Snow, I've been reading in Jeremiah and Lamentations of Jeremiah. And all that is in those two books will raise the hair one one's neck. First off I found out for a certainty that to keep God in a priority relationship one cannot tithe from the gains of another relations in which one has to interact with a false God! It's kind of like we read what Paul wrote about this, some could partake of the banquet stuffs that had been offered to a false god and it wouldn't bother their spirits at all, however some folks would be so offended that such foods had been offered to a false god and that what was left over was what they were offered to eat. So it's just best to keep one's slef away from false gods...that being mostly those who have bodies perhaps like we do, but they do not eat, drink or be merry...definitely not in answer to a worshipper's needs! False gods! Some folks now days are so into going to many different social gatherings, which really are nothing much each of them alone...but doing them all as they come along makes the human doing such athing worshipping that kind of life style.....and once the day or night is over that action is over as well....now then on to the next awaited party.....but these people do have some conscience, so they take the money they've saved while partaking of the freebies and put them into the church's funds....do you think the Lord will be pleased about that? I don't....because that money wasn't considered the Lord's before the amount was established and not spent on dancing or party favors! Kind of like Jesus told the folks, that they needed to give unto Ceasar the things that are ceasar's and unto God the thing's that are God's.....
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 8, 2014 14:44:12 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. Fixit ~ I professed in 1965 and left in 1995 and this is what I remember from those years of professing. If the workers have changed their focus from themselves and meetings in the home to the real message of the Cross and redemption through Jesus' sacrifice, I would be impressed. I would also be impressed if they shed their exclusivity in beliefs and claim as being the only way of salvation, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon either? Although the 2x2's may make allusion to such in their hymn book, they don't really preach it in their gospel meetings. Even the gospel hymns are picked to give the impression of complying with the basic teachings of Christianity, but one soon learns after they profess that they follow a different rule book, which means more to them than what's stated in scripture. I attended enough of them that I remember quite well what was really stressed. Also, in regards to encouraging folks to be involved in charitable works outside their group, I can remember that never being stressed, in fact discouraged within the fellowship. Anybody who does get involved in such, do so independently of the 2x2's, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 8, 2014 15:55:16 GMT -5
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. Fixit ~ I professed in 1965 and left in 1995 and this is what I remember from those years of professing. If the workers have changed their focus from themselves and meetings in the home to the real message of the Cross and redemption through Jesus' sacrifice, I would be impressed. I would also be impressed if they shed their exclusivity in beliefs and claim as being the only way of salvation, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon either? Although the 2x2's may make allusion to such in their hymn book, they don't really preach it in their gospel meetings. Even the gospel hymns are picked to give the impression of complying with the basic teachings of Christianity, but one soon learns after they profess that they follow a different rule book, which means more to them than what's stated in scripture. I attended enough of them that I remember quite well what was really stressed. Also, in regards to encouraging folks to be involved in charitable works outside their group, I can remember that never being stressed, in fact discouraged within the fellowship. Anybody who does get involved in such, do so independently of the 2x2's, IMHO.
The Cross is central to the f&w teaching, but they emphasize "carrying the cross" as opposed to "being saved by the cross". Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Could it be any clearer? The Protestant and evangelical churches especially have a very strong emphasis on the doctrine of "substitutionary atonement", or the idea that Jesus died for our sins. In my many years of reading the Bible, I haven't found an overwhelming presence of this doctrine, at least not to the extent you hear about it in the Protestant churches. There is a really good historical survey of the doctrine on wiki-. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonementPerhaps I'll read it later and might clarify a few questions I have. My main point though is that the harmful effects of exclusivism do not follow from questions such as the centrality of the Cross. There are many exclusive, legalistic groups far worse than the f&w who believe in the substitutionary atonement. I do agree with Grey and many others that "meeting in the home and workers without a home is the only way to Jesus" is not sound doctrine. But even that does not make the f&w a dangerous cult. Incidentally that doctrine is widely held but not really preached from the platform, at least not very often.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 8, 2014 16:40:38 GMT -5
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. Snow, I've been reading in Jeremiah and Lamentations of Jeremiah. And all that is in those two books will raise the hair one one's neck. First off I found out for a certainty that to keep God in a priority relationship one cannot tithe from the gains of another relations in which one has to interact with a false God! It's kind of like we read what Paul wrote about this, some could partake of the banquet stuffs that had been offered to a false god and it wouldn't bother their spirits at all, however some folks would be so offended that such foods had been offered to a false god and that what was left over was what they were offered to eat. So it's just best to keep one's slef away from false gods...that being mostly those who have bodies perhaps like we do, but they do not eat, drink or be merry...definitely not in answer to a worshipper's needs! False gods! Some folks now days are so into going to many different social gatherings, which really are nothing much each of them alone...but doing them all as they come along makes the human doing such athing worshipping that kind of life style.....and once the day or night is over that action is over as well....now then on to the next awaited party.....but these people do have some conscience, so they take the money they've saved while partaking of the freebies and put them into the church's funds....do you think the Lord will be pleased about that? I don't....because that money wasn't considered the Lord's before the amount was established and not spent on dancing or party favors! Kind of like Jesus told the folks, that they needed to give unto Ceasar the things that are ceasar's and unto God the thing's that are God's..... Was this for me STR. I don't think I said a relationship with god wasn't personal, did I? I think it would be very personal.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 9, 2014 11:22:27 GMT -5
Snow, I've been reading in Jeremiah and Lamentations of Jeremiah. And all that is in those two books will raise the hair one one's neck. First off I found out for a certainty that to keep God in a priority relationship one cannot tithe from the gains of another relations in which one has to interact with a false God! It's kind of like we read what Paul wrote about this, some could partake of the banquet stuffs that had been offered to a false god and it wouldn't bother their spirits at all, however some folks would be so offended that such foods had been offered to a false god and that what was left over was what they were offered to eat. So it's just best to keep one's slef away from false gods...that being mostly those who have bodies perhaps like we do, but they do not eat, drink or be merry...definitely not in answer to a worshipper's needs! False gods! Some folks now days are so into going to many different social gatherings, which really are nothing much each of them alone...but doing them all as they come along makes the human doing such athing worshipping that kind of life style.....and once the day or night is over that action is over as well....now then on to the next awaited party.....but these people do have some conscience, so they take the money they've saved while partaking of the freebies and put them into the church's funds....do you think the Lord will be pleased about that? I don't....because that money wasn't considered the Lord's before the amount was established and not spent on dancing or party favors! Kind of like Jesus told the folks, that they needed to give unto Ceasar the things that are ceasar's and unto God the thing's that are God's..... Was this for me STR. I don't think I said a relationship with god wasn't personal, did I? I think it would be very personal. Snow, you'd mentioned that one could never know for sure that their belief or relationship with God was "the only one" as if you doubted that anyone c ould know for certain they did have a personal relationship with God! I just was trying to show you what had happened that brought so much grief and tears to the Lord in regards to sins of the Children of Israel in their loss of faith and love for Him in Jeremiah and Lamentations and Ezekiel! To me that is a "sign" that a personal relationship is very possible if one wants one! And moreover there would be signs of that personal relationship esp. to the one that has it. I wasn't particularly saying that there is only one way to worship the God of Heaven as in one religion being the only one.....but that it IS definitely a very personal thing for those who believe in him, so IF there is to be considered "only one way" then it should be individualized!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 9, 2014 11:36:52 GMT -5
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. Fixit ~ I professed in 1965 and left in 1995 and this is what I remember from those years of professing. If the workers have changed their focus from themselves and meetings in the home to the real message of the Cross and redemption through Jesus' sacrifice, I would be impressed. I would also be impressed if they shed their exclusivity in beliefs and claim as being the only way of salvation, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon either? Although the 2x2's may make allusion to such in their hymn book, they don't really preach it in their gospel meetings. Even the gospel hymns are picked to give the impression of complying with the basic teachings of Christianity, but one soon learns after they profess that they follow a different rule book, which means more to them than what's stated in scripture. I attended enough of them that I remember quite well what was really stressed. Also, in regards to encouraging folks to be involved in charitable works outside their group, I can remember that never being stressed, in fact discouraged within the fellowship. Anybody who does get involved in such, do so independently of the 2x2's, IMHO.
I agree that some of the workers have preached the Jesus gospel in their missions and sometimes get some of it during the night mtgs. at convs. At least until recently! The telling change happened when BM testified in a conv. that he believed that he had fellowship with the person who had written a particular hymn that is in the 2x2 hymnbook. This testimony shocked most of the audience, as well as most of the workers. It was something that they didn't want anybody thinking about, regardless that it is the "truth"! So things went down the pike for BM until he was asked not to speak or take any part in the mtgs. at home.....he wanted to know the exact reason why. He kept on until finally Lyle Schobar answered him in an email rather in a person as I feel perhaps Lyle was cognizant that a heated discussion would come from him saying such a thing to BM in person! Anyway, LS told BM that BM apparently did not understand what the workers and friends held so dear and so important. And that was the itinerant 2x2 ministery and the meetings in the home! That IS the 2 tenets of faith that hold the workers and friends together, apparently this day and age! So the preaching of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ has to come AFTER the hoped-for new converts "get it" that the 2x2 itinerant workership and the meetings in the home are what the workers and friends hold very dear and very necessary for their religion! So it is little wonder that older workers are beginning to "add" to the gospel of Jesus Christ! Is that correct procedure? Seems LS says it is for the 2x2 religious group! So for those of us who hold the gospel of Jesus Christ our ONLY salvation we find ourselves unable to fellowship with the workers and friends of today, so we have tried to slip out and find ourselves a group that worships as we have wanted to worship and that being that Jesus Christ died to save mankind by cleansing them of their sins through his sufferings on the cross AND that we have pure hope of resurrection unto life because he is the firstborn of the regeneration! And thus leaving others we've known and love still in the 2x2's facing the definitive thing that an overseer made known in an email that is their religious belief! I've asked when reading LS's email to BM, "Where is Jesus Christ in all of this?"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 9, 2014 13:31:50 GMT -5
Was this for me STR. I don't think I said a relationship with god wasn't personal, did I? I think it would be very personal. Snow, you'd mentioned that one could never know for sure that their belief or relationship with God was "the only one" as if you doubted that anyone c ould know for certain they did have a personal relationship with God! I just was trying to show you what had happened that brought so much grief and tears to the Lord in regards to sins of the Children of Israel in their loss of faith and love for Him in Jeremiah and Lamentations and Ezekiel! To me that is a "sign" that a personal relationship is very possible if one wants one! And moreover there would be signs of that personal relationship esp. to the one that has it. I wasn't particularly saying that there is only one way to worship the God of Heaven as in one religion being the only one.....but that it IS definitely a very personal thing for those who believe in him, so IF there is to be considered "only one way" then it should be individualized! I was referring to the different denominations of Christianity thinking they know for sure that they have the right way of worshiping God. Mary said it was a personal relationship with God, which I would agree with, which would say that anyone saying someone else's personal relationship with God was wrong would not be something anyone could know for sure. It would be highly arrogant and pompous imo to say someone's personal relationship with God was not good enough. People may sit in groups in churches and be different denominations, but the group is not the relationship. The people individually are the relationship with God.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 9, 2014 14:34:36 GMT -5
Fixit ~ I professed in 1965 and left in 1995 and this is what I remember from those years of professing. If the workers have changed their focus from themselves and meetings in the home to the real message of the Cross and redemption through Jesus' sacrifice, I would be impressed. I would also be impressed if they shed their exclusivity in beliefs and claim as being the only way of salvation, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon either? Although the 2x2's may make allusion to such in their hymn book, they don't really preach it in their gospel meetings. Even the gospel hymns are picked to give the impression of complying with the basic teachings of Christianity, but one soon learns after they profess that they follow a different rule book, which means more to them than what's stated in scripture. I attended enough of them that I remember quite well what was really stressed. Also, in regards to encouraging folks to be involved in charitable works outside their group, I can remember that never being stressed, in fact discouraged within the fellowship. Anybody who does get involved in such, do so independently of the 2x2's, IMHO.
I agree that some of the workers have preached the Jesus gospel in their missions and sometimes get some of it during the night mtgs. at convs. At least until recently! The telling change happened when BM testified in a conv. that he believed that he had fellowship with the person who had written a particular hymn that is in the 2x2 hymnbook. This testimony shocked most of the audience, as well as most of the workers. It was something that they didn't want anybody thinking about, regardless that it is the "truth"! So things went down the pike for BM until he was asked not to speak or take any part in the mtgs. at home.....he wanted to know the exact reason why. He kept on until finally Lyle Schobar answered him in an email rather in a person as I feel perhaps Lyle was cognizant that a heated discussion would come from him saying such a thing to BM in person! Anyway, LS told BM that BM apparently did not understand what the workers and friends held so dear and so important. And that was the itinerant 2x2 ministery and the meetings in the home! That IS the 2 tenets of faith that hold the workers and friends together, apparently this day and age! So the preaching of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ has to come AFTER the hoped-for new converts "get it" that the 2x2 itinerant workership and the meetings in the home are what the workers and friends hold very dear and very necessary for their religion! So it is little wonder that older workers are beginning to "add" to the gospel of Jesus Christ! Is that correct procedure? Seems LS says it is for the 2x2 religious group! So for those of us who hold the gospel of Jesus Christ our ONLY salvation we find ourselves unable to fellowship with the workers and friends of today, so we have tried to slip out and find ourselves a group that worships as we have wanted to worship and that being that Jesus Christ died to save mankind by cleansing them of their sins through his sufferings on the cross AND that we have pure hope of resurrection unto life because he is the firstborn of the regeneration! And thus leaving others we've known and love still in the 2x2's facing the definitive thing that an overseer made known in an email that is their religious belief! I've asked when reading LS's email to BM, "Where is Jesus Christ in all of this?" STR ~ I can see you understand what I'm getting at here and I would like to bring out that Paul spoke about the same in 2 Corinthians 11:2-15 regarding the same deception which promotes another Jesus and different gospel apart from the one Paul preached and is believed today as being the essential doctrine behind Christianity as we know it.
carm.org/essential-doctrines-of-Christianity Essential Doctrines of Christianity
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011%3A2-15&version=AMP;NIV;KJV 2 Corinthians 11:2-15
www.letusreason.org/Tridir.htm Defending and Defining the doctrine of the Trinity and Deity of Christ.
www.letusreason.org/Trin1.htm THE EARLY CHURCH WAS OUTSPOKEN ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 9, 2014 14:46:12 GMT -5
I believe this article taken from a list of articles on the last site I quoted previously, will help clarify what I'm trying to say here. Actually what the 2x2's, J'W's, Mormons, and a few other related groups believe to be true today is what they called Arianism between the 2nd and 4th centuries, which led up to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to arrive at unity within the church regarding taught church doctrine. The early Gnostics of the 2nd century had their own views regarding Jesus which also fit into this definition of Arianism in which Jesus is regarded as being less than the Father and more like a created being with some divine attributes. This doctrine faded away around the 5th and 6th centuries and then came back into focus in the 18th and 19th centuries and continues today within some of the non-trinitarian groups mentioned, including the 2x2's.
www.letusreason.org/trin15.htm Christ as Lord ( described within the Trinity)
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 9, 2014 14:59:04 GMT -5
I believe this article taken from a list of articles on the last site I quoted previously, will help clarify what I'm trying to say here. Actually what the 2x2's, J'W's, Mormons, and a few other related groups believe to be true today is what they called Arianism between the 2nd and 4th centuries, which led up to the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to arrive at unity within the church regarding taught church doctrine. However, what surfaced instead were three different doctrines ~ "Orthodox," Arian, and Gnostic." The Gnostics and Arians eventually faded from existence by around the 6th century due to persecution by the organized Church at Rome, only to emerge later in the 18th and 19th centuries due to new religious movements springing up who supported their teachings. The Arians had their own views regarding Jesus and did not regard Jesus as be equated to God in the flesh, but rather more like a man who eventually achieved divinity in the end through living the perfect life. This doctrine faded away and then came back into focus in the 18th and 19th centuries and continues today within some of the non-trinitarian groups mentioned, including the 2x2's.
www.letusreason.org/Tridir.htm Defending and Defining the doctrine of the Trinity and Deity of Christ.
carm.org/religious-movements/-about-cults/list-cults-and-non-christian-groups www.gotquestions.org/arianism.html Arianism
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 9, 2014 18:29:53 GMT -5
Faune, I guess you could say "essential doctrines of Christianity" but I'm sure Jesus himself would not consider some of this theology to be "essential doctrine".
I understand why some F&W have concerns about being referred to as "Christians".
"Christianity" has perverted the simplicity that is in Christ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2014 18:35:56 GMT -5
Faune, I guess you could say "essential doctrines of Christianity" but I'm sure Jesus himself would not consider some of this theology to be "essential doctrine". I understand why some F&W have concerns about being referred to as "Christians". "Christianity" has perverted the simplicity that is in Christ.
And left the simplicity that is in Christ!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 9, 2014 21:25:15 GMT -5
Faune, I guess you could say "essential doctrines of Christianity" but I'm sure Jesus himself would not consider some of this theology to be "essential doctrine". I understand why some F&W have concerns about being referred to as "Christians". "Christianity" has perverted the simplicity that is in Christ. Fixit ~ I would guess that only a few of the Friends have a basic understanding of what really constitutes Christian doctrine, which makes it so easy to swallow anything the workers pass on to them? It was no different for me when I was within the 2x2's. However, when I exited the fellowship, I really began a study of what the Bible actually taught regarding Jesus and the Cross and what constituted Christian beliefs. My efforts made me realize just how much I had been mislead over the years by the worker's own version of the gospel message. Also, the Jesus they presented was much different from the one described within Christianity today. It just took making some effort on my part to discover this for myself and not just believing what anybody told me. In fact, today I make it a point to check out the validity of anything I hear to avoid being led down another "rabbit trail" by anybody else regarding the nature of Jesus Christ and the real gospel message associated with our salvation.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Dec 9, 2014 21:35:59 GMT -5
Faune, I guess you could say "essential doctrines of Christianity" but I'm sure Jesus himself would not consider some of this theology to be "essential doctrine". I understand why some F&W have concerns about being referred to as "Christians". "Christianity" has perverted the simplicity that is in Christ. Fixit ~ I might suggest you check out for yourself regarding what some of these Early Church Fathers of the first century and thereafter believed regarding Jesus and than really think about exactly who is corrupting or perverting the simplicity that is in Christ and the true gospel that Paul and the other apostles preached? I'm sure one difference you will find here between them and the 2x2's is that these ECF's really believe Jesus to be divine and God in the flesh, two premises that are both disallowed by the workers in their sermons. Perhaps your hymnbook may have some reference that resembles Christian beliefs, but think for a moment about what is actually taught within gospel meetings and Sunday Morning Meetings. Would you really call that the core message of Christianity today?
www.letusreason.org/Trin1.htm ~ THE EARLY CHURCH WAS OUTSPOKEN ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 10, 2014 14:33:40 GMT -5
I'm more interested in the authentic Christianity that Jesus taught than what the ECF believed.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 10, 2014 21:25:50 GMT -5
Snow, you'd mentioned that one could never know for sure that their belief or relationship with God was "the only one" as if you doubted that anyone c ould know for certain they did have a personal relationship with God! I just was trying to show you what had happened that brought so much grief and tears to the Lord in regards to sins of the Children of Israel in their loss of faith and love for Him in Jeremiah and Lamentations and Ezekiel! To me that is a "sign" that a personal relationship is very possible if one wants one! And moreover there would be signs of that personal relationship esp. to the one that has it. I wasn't particularly saying that there is only one way to worship the God of Heaven as in one religion being the only one.....but that it IS definitely a very personal thing for those who believe in him, so IF there is to be considered "only one way" then it should be individualized! I was referring to the different denominations of Christianity thinking they know for sure that they have the right way of worshiping God. Mary said it was a personal relationship with God, which I would agree with, which would say that anyone saying someone else's personal relationship with God was wrong would not be something anyone could know for sure. It would be highly arrogant and pompous imo to say someone's personal relationship with God was not good enough. People may sit in groups in churches and be different denominations, but the group is not the relationship. The people individually are the relationship with God. Precisely my thoughts are much along that line as well. And honestly it brings more questions then it answers as far as churches and their different sets of beliefs are concerned. Our relationship with any person as well as God in heaven can only be estimated for worth by ourselves! And even in the best of things, I think sometimes the best of us do lose some connections in our relationship with God in heaven for a time...whether it's from enby, apathy or disagreement with some other person's denominational beliefs, perhaps isn't know and may make little difference....but the fact of the destruction of one of the relationships with God speaks that it is an ugly issue that needs to be lanced and then healed! What is Jesus going to say when he returns and he sees all these differenct "Christian" denominational churches, but in spite of those many churches, he still finds great lacking of faith? I think that was his question.....
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Dec 10, 2014 21:32:02 GMT -5
Faune, I guess you could say "essential doctrines of Christianity" but I'm sure Jesus himself would not consider some of this theology to be "essential doctrine". I understand why some F&W have concerns about being referred to as "Christians". "Christianity" has perverted the simplicity that is in Christ. Fixit ~ I might suggest you check out for yourself regarding what some of these Early Church Fathers of the first century and thereafter believed regarding Jesus and than really think about exactly who is corrupting or perverting the simplicity that is in Christ and the true gospel that Paul and the other apostles preached? I'm sure one difference you will find here between them and the 2x2's is that these ECF's really believe Jesus to be divine and God in the flesh, two premises that are both disallowed by the workers in their sermons. Perhaps your hymnbook may have some reference that resembles Christian beliefs, but think for a moment about what is actually taught within gospel meetings and Sunday Morning Meetings. Would you really call that the core message of Christianity today?
www.letusreason.org/Trin1.htm ~ THE EARLY CHURCH WAS OUTSPOKEN ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST
If Nathaniel could worship Jesus and if Thomas could worship Jesus, why is it such a jump in connection for some folks to understand the Deity of our Lord and SAviour? I've wondered what and how Jesus is going to handle those who "believe in Jesus" but not to the point of "Jesus Christ" when he begins to judge folks in regards to their salvation. Those who are still holding out that Jesus is a man and only a man and though he did finally attain "divine" rating after he died on the cross as some 2x2s seem to believe.....are these folks considered those who are only exercised in the milk of the word? I am not being ugly here, I'd really like to know, but then of course as Jesus is the final Judge and a very compassionate and upright Judge, it really isn't my business, I suppose....but it's something I wonder about simply because Paul was certainly put out with those who were still only on the "milk of the word:"!
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 11, 2014 0:45:08 GMT -5
Fixit ~ I might suggest you check out for yourself regarding what some of these Early Church Fathers of the first century and thereafter believed regarding Jesus and than really think about exactly who is corrupting or perverting the simplicity that is in Christ and the true gospel that Paul and the other apostles preached? I'm sure one difference you will find here between them and the 2x2's is that these ECF's really believe Jesus to be divine and God in the flesh, two premises that are both disallowed by the workers in their sermons. Perhaps your hymnbook may have some reference that resembles Christian beliefs, but think for a moment about what is actually taught within gospel meetings and Sunday Morning Meetings. Would you really call that the core message of Christianity today?
www.letusreason.org/Trin1.htm ~ THE EARLY CHURCH WAS OUTSPOKEN ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST
If Nathaniel could worship Jesus and if Thomas could worship Jesus, why is it such a jump in connection for some folks to understand the Deity of our Lord and SAviour? I've wondered what and how Jesus is going to handle those who "believe in Jesus" but not to the point of "Jesus Christ" when he begins to judge folks in regards to their salvation. Those who are still holding out that Jesus is a man and only a man and though he did finally attain "divine" rating after he died on the cross as some 2x2s seem to believe.....are these folks considered those who are only exercised in the milk of the word? I am not being ugly here, I'd really like to know, but then of course as Jesus is the final Judge and a very compassionate and upright Judge, it really isn't my business, I suppose....but it's something I wonder about simply because Paul was certainly put out with those who were still only on the "milk of the word:"! I doubt that "milk" had anything to do with trinity dogma.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 11, 2014 1:06:08 GMT -5
I'm more interested in the authentic Christianity that Jesus taught than what the ECF believed. Maybe so, but whether we like it or not the The RCC made sure that the ECF was about all that we would be able to know..
That is until recently with The Dead Sea Scrolls & the the Nag Hammadi scriptures
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 11, 2014 4:26:48 GMT -5
Faune, I guess you could say "essential doctrines of Christianity" but I'm sure Jesus himself would not consider some of this theology to be "essential doctrine". I understand why some F&W have concerns about being referred to as "Christians". "Christianity" has perverted the simplicity that is in Christ. Fixit ~ I might suggest you check out for yourself regarding what some of these Early Church Fathers of the first century and thereafter believed regarding Jesus and than really think about exactly who is corrupting or perverting the simplicity that is in Christ and the true gospel that Paul and the other apostles preached? I'm sure one difference you will find here between them and the 2x2's is that these ECF's really believe Jesus to be divine and God in the flesh, two premises that are both disallowed by the workers in their sermons. Perhaps your hymnbook may have some reference that resembles Christian beliefs, but think for a moment about what is actually taught within gospel meetings and Sunday Morning Meetings. Would you really call that the core message of Christianity today?
www.letusreason.org/Trin1.htm ~ THE EARLY CHURCH WAS OUTSPOKEN ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST
Deity is a very general word. What is clear is that there were a range of views on the nature of the Incarnation through to the councils in the later first millennium. These people are just cherry picking ... they're not looking at the full range of ideas and writings of the early fathers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 7:19:53 GMT -5
Fixit ~ I might suggest you check out for yourself regarding what some of these Early Church Fathers of the first century and thereafter believed regarding Jesus and than really think about exactly who is corrupting or perverting the simplicity that is in Christ and the true gospel that Paul and the other apostles preached? I'm sure one difference you will find here between them and the 2x2's is that these ECF's really believe Jesus to be divine and God in the flesh, two premises that are both disallowed by the workers in their sermons. Perhaps your hymnbook may have some reference that resembles Christian beliefs, but think for a moment about what is actually taught within gospel meetings and Sunday Morning Meetings. Would you really call that the core message of Christianity today?
www.letusreason.org/Trin1.htm ~ THE EARLY CHURCH WAS OUTSPOKEN ON THE DEITY OF CHRIST
If Nathaniel could worship Jesus and if Thomas could worship Jesus, why is it such a jump in connection for some folks to understand the Deity of our Lord and SAviour? I've wondered what and how Jesus is going to handle those who "believe in Jesus" but not to the point of "Jesus Christ" when he begins to judge folks in regards to their salvation. Those who are still holding out that Jesus is a man and only a man and though he did finally attain "divine" rating after he died on the cross as some 2x2s seem to believe.....are these folks considered those who are only exercised in the milk of the word? I am not being ugly here, I'd really like to know, but then of course as Jesus is the final Judge and a very compassionate and upright Judge, it really isn't my business, I suppose....but it's something I wonder about simply because Paul was certainly put out with those who were still only on the "milk of the word:"! Shaz, here is an understanding on "worship" which puts things into better context. www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/can-we-worship-jesus-christ
|
|