theophiles.org - Ties that bind?

Written by holmegm

Saturday, 14 February 2009 14:10

From the Akron Beacon-Journal:

Annemarie Smith, 48, a Roman Catholic from Stow, believes her 18-year-old son, Thomas, has been taken by a cult.
She has launched a religious war that has engaged the Stow police, mayor, high school and a municipal judge.

Comments

holmegm

|2009-02-14 14:14:30

article wrote:

McCallum, 52, said that his group is nontraditional in that it has no building and is focused on young people, but it is traditional in its study of the Bible.

His family has a history of Christian work. His mother was born to African missionaries. Brother Scot McCallum died accidentally in 2003 while on a mission trip in Russia.

And another brother, Dennis, started a ministry in the early 1970s — much like the one in Stow — with small group meetings.

Today, Dennis McCallum is pastor of the loosely organized 5,000-member Xenos Christian Fellowship, a megachurch on the Columbus beltway.

But as some local members joke, no matter how big or how established the church, just having an ''X'' in the name seems to alarm people.

laika

|2009-02-14 17:53:47

holmegm quoting the article wrote:

But as some local members joke, no matter how big or how established the church, just having an ''X'' in the name seems to alarm people.

guess it's a good thing we got rid of all that X business, then.

Entity

|2009-02-14 18:01:31

I'm sure that "-philes" scares some people away.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-02-15 19:28:54

Oh, for the love of pete! will some one please make a "xenophobia" joke already?
this has been killing me.

emperorbma

|2009-02-15 22:53:00

How about xenophiles? ... or maybe Xenu?

4Him	\|2009-02-16 13:39:43

Xenu? Don't think so - Ron L. Hubbard is far from our fundamental roots.

A Xenoid

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 13:50:20

Quote:

Ron L. Hubbard

Well, Entity wanted a "xenophobia" joke, so I tried to give it a little twist. Is it too late to change it to xenuphobia? :P

4Him	\|2009-02-16 14:08:37

I appreciate the humor. I am cracking up....and so is my friend.

dardrops

|2009-02-16 14:13:34

Hey!!!! I have "xenuphobia" too. :P

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 15:02:48

Cool, most of my jokes are old recycled internet memes. It's nice to come up with something new for once. :)

Entity - re:

|2009-02-16 14:36:06

emperorbma wrote:

Quote:

Ron L. Hubbard

Well, Entity wanted a "xenophobia" joke, so I tried to give it a little twist. Is it too late to change it to xenuphobia? :P

That was WFoC demanding the xenophobia joke. If I had xenophobia, my workplace would be a constant source of angst. (A co-worker and I used to quietly joke that our manager had honkyphobia as we were the only white guys on our team. He was later fired.)

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 15:04:23

Quote:

That was WFoC demanding the xenophobia joke.

Sorry 'bout that. My mistake. :)

Entity

|2009-02-16 15:07:16

Just being ornery. I doubt many people would confuse WFoC and I. :-P

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-02-16 21:30:13

yes...I'm most likely the one not wearing pants.

laika

|2009-02-16 16:27:07

emperorbma wrote:

How about xenophiles?

hah! you beat me to it!

yeah, that way we could incorporate our roots and our new into something that could potentially frighten even more people away :-)

metallurge - Slander?

|2009-02-14 18:15:30

I'm thinking that some of Ms. Smith's comments would meet the legal definition of slanderous. She seems more angry than Christian in her behavior. Her son looks more spiritually mature than she does, frankly.

Xenos is a classical "emergent church", centered on small groups rather than large corporate worship services. I have been impressed by what I have seen, frankly. They seem nothing if not spiritually intentional in why they do things the way they do, and it seems utterly inconsistent for Ms. Smith to imagine that a small group focus resembles a Jim Jones-like cult-of-personality.

The whole tone of the conversation is just wrong, if you ask me. Big & established != safe and small & local != to be feared.

emperorbma

|2009-02-14 19:27:43

Quote:

Big & established != safe and small & local != to be feared.

Yup. Especially since small & local was once Christianity... (Of course, Christ appointed Paul to fix that pretty fast)

You know, it is really weird to be able to make a statement that is going to be interpreted as true regardless of whether one is Christian or not. The first half of it is just that.

dardrops - slander?

|2009-02-16 14:10:12

My husband & I are the "devil" and the "devil wife" written about in the "Ties That Bind?" article. If anyone is interested in understanding more about what has gone on that resulted in this article, here are our public blog & website. Feel free to comment there as well.

http://issues.neoblogs.org/posts/cult-accusation/ & http://neoxenos.org/inside/akron-beacon-journal/

It was not our choice to be followed around by a reporter for 3 months but are praying that the results of this will be glorifying to God & that the message of the Gospel can shine through this. Our focus on youth seems "weird" to some, I guess, but George Barna & Josh McDowell give statistics showing that 80% of kids who've grown up in the church leave by their 20's & never return. See http://neozine.org/inside/can-they-be-rescued. If they think Christ is irrelevant, how is it possible for non-Christian kids to ever hear the Gospel? Our focus is on unchurched kids. The growth in our fellowship is about 80% convert growth. We do get some from church backgrounds, but since they have already heard the Gospel (hopefully), we are focused on what we feel is almost an unreached people group in our own country.

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 14:58:08

Welcome to Theophiles. It's not often that we get a visit from someone in the stories we post. I hope you enjoy your stay.

dardrops

|2009-02-16 16:32:46

I am enjoying it very much! Thanks!

Entity - re: slander?

|2009-02-16 14:58:03

dardrops wrote:

My husband & I are the "devil" and the "devil wife" written about in the "Ties That Bind?" article.

Thank you for visiting our site! Hopefully you will stick around for some dialogue so we can better understand.

dardrops wrote:

We do get some from church backgrounds

I find this troubling, particularly if the kids are being re-baptized. Perhaps this is a result of my college experience where non-denominational or Baptist groups made a habit of poaching Catholic kids. Many times this led to division in their homes because they would accuse their Catholic parents of idolatry or other evils. Between the problems this caused in the family and the 'rite of initiation' (believer's baptism), it made some believe them to be cults. And some of them on my campus were, Campus Crusade for Christ being the notable one.

Others like University Christian Outreach seemed to be more about supporting new or established Christians in whichever denomination they belonged to.

In regards to established Christians, do you try to assist their faith journey in their denomination or to conform their faith to your beliefs? Do you view infant baptism as invalid and require believer's baptism to become a member of your church? Is believer's baptism at another church considered valid?

metallurge - re: slander?

|2009-02-16 15:51:40

Entity wrote:

Do you view infant baptism as invalid and require believer's baptism to become a member of your church?

Perhaps it's not the infant part that is the problem, but the non-immersion part? ;-)

Entity

|2009-02-16 16:00:55

Perhaps it's not the infant part that is the problem, but the non-immersion part? ;-)

I wish it were. However, they would probably ascribe some vile motive to non-immersion baptism as well.

From their website:

Quote:

But Anabaptists threatened this new social order. Their name came from “baptizing again” church members already baptized as infants. Anabaptists claimed that only adults could make the decision to be saved by Jesus Christ, so adults who made this decision were baptized as Jesus instructed (Mt. 28:18ff).

This was more than a dispute over rituals: it was sedition. The state church needed all citizens to be “Christian,” which meant Christianity-at-birth, not later. Especially in wars against Muslims, the battlefield is no place to ask, “Am I a Christian yet?” Infant baptism settled the issue, and battlefield generals wanted it that way.

BTW, they don't like the Orthodox Churches either:

Quote:

Today the same fear of reading the Bible for oneself still rages in people’s hearts. I once gave a copy of The Scarlet Thread to a friend (a survey of the Bible), and he began reading it voraciously. He was amazed as he read the Bible for himself without a priest! But he was Serbian and Eastern Orthodox, so when his priest found out he was engaged in a self-taught Bible study, the man’s enthusiasm was drowned with dour warnings about how complicated the Bible is, how dangerous it is to read it without a formal seminary education, and how nearly-impossible it is for anyone to truly understand. My Serbian friend dropped the project like a hot potato.

He was too afraid to study the Bible himself!

CoffeeZombie - re:

|2009-02-17 13:48:32

Entity wrote:

BTW, they don't like the Orthodox Churches either:

Quote:

It's nice to at least be noticed...

Jim	\|2009-02-17 13:59:46

Non-immersion baptism kind of kills the analogical nature of the ritual: the symbolic death with Christ and emergence to a new life in his resurrection.

emperorbma

|2009-02-17 14:22:25

Well, the Didache can be seen as a dissenting witness to the immersion-only viewpoint albeit one which clearly prefers the use of rivers if it is convenient. As far as my own church is concerned, it will perform full immersion if asked but it is understood that full immersion is not the only valid baptism. Of course, part of the non-immersion case also ties into the viewpoint that it is a manifestation of Divine grace rather than simple analogy.

Entity

|2009-02-17 14:28:48

I believe the only full immersion in our baptismal font was a young boy who ran full tilt Easter Sunday and dove into into the pool at the base.

emperorbma

|2009-02-17 14:34:18

The other thing about it is that very few people actually request full immersion, so we don't usually see it much either in LCMS.

4Him - re:

|2009-02-17 16:45:52

Entity wrote:

I believe the only full immersion in our baptismal font was a young boy who ran full tilt Easter Sunday and dove into into the pool at the base.

Could have been a relation of mine. My family has a way of making a spectacle of themselves.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-17 16:24:11

IIRC, the Didache indicates that immersion is the ideal form. However, sprinkling, etc., is acceptable as a matter of economia.

In other words, baptism by immersion is the fullness of the faith. However, in cases where it is, for some reason, not possible, sprinkling or other forms (I forget what all is listed in the Didache) are allowed.

I believe, but could be wrong, that this is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. I do know that the Orthodox Church normally baptizes by immersion.

Entity

|2009-02-17 16:43:56

When you and your wife converted, you were not re-baptized, correct?

grizzly

|2009-02-17 18:18:30

Not CoffeeZombie, but an(other) Orthodox convert. I was not rebaptized when I converted from Protestantism. I did have to confirm that I was baptized using the (standard) Trinitarian formula. As he and I belong to the same archdiocese, I expect it was the same for him and his wife.

Jim	\|2009-02-17 21:38:38

The Didache is great. It's the original missional document. By all means, if someone want to get baptized you do it by whatever means you can find.

I would never describe any ritual as "simple analogy." It's always a complex system of interlocking understandings that creates meaning and communitas while at the same time creating distinctions and boundaries. A big part of the problem with Protestantism is that they just don't understand the importance of ritual.

In baptism the analogical nature is stressed all over the NT. Whenever Paul is starting with the premise that his readers have died and risen with Christ, he's referring to their baptism. That is, to their believer, immersion baptism. So, it's kind of a big deal if you're going to get what Paul's doing.

Granted, like any other ritual baptism is a moving target; nothing in religion stays the same. However, it is important that there is the affirmation of continuity, even when the new idea or action is a complete innovation (e.g. Josiah's "reform" in 2 Kgs, Ezra and Nehemiah's "reform" in the Persian Period, the Essenes "reform" in the Hellenistic period, etc etc). In fact, ritual often helps such innovation gain street cred.

But I digress. Too much time looking at Canaanite ritual texts today.

wezlo

|2009-02-17 21:59:47

Quote:

A big part of the problem with Protestantism is that they just don't understand the importance of ritual.

In many respects its not only a lack of understanding, but an outright hostility that defends against the possibility of understanding ritual.

laika

|2009-02-18 00:00:09

wezlo quoting Jim wrote:

Quote:
A big part of the problem with Protestantism is that they just don't understand the importance of ritual.

Quote:

In many respects its not only a lack of understanding, but an outright hostility that defends against the possibility of understanding ritual.

yup and yuppers. where does that come from historically? is it just a product of the American preoccupation with the individual experience, or do the roots go back further?

goodmorningmidnight - re:

|2009-02-18 09:43:08

Biblically speaking, our only rituals that we must follow are limited to post-salvation water baptism (which needs happen only once) and communion with fellow believers.

Are these the same rituals that you follow, or are there more? I'm just curious, because I only come from a Protestant background.

By the way, I haven't said this yet, but thanks for the recent welcome, and I'm really enjoying getting a better understanding what and why non-Protestants believe. This is such a great, open atmosphere for dialoguing!

dardrops

|2009-02-16 17:12:30

Hello again, Entity. Happy to dialogue with you.

Let me clear about something in reference to "kids getting baptized." We never baptize minor children without their parents permission. Never. As a matter of fact, all minors must have their parent's permission to attend any of our meetings, let alone get baptized. We make a point of meeting parents (where they allow us to do so) and inviting them to check us out. The young man in the article had been attending our fellowship since the 7th grade with his parent's permission. It is interesting and revealing that in all the times I picked him up at his home, his mother never came to the door to meet me - never. To this day, after 6 1/2 years of knowing this young man who is a close friend of my son's, I have never met her. Although she had given permission for her son to come to our fellowship and spend many hours in our home, she has never once been to one of our meetings or to our home despite numerous invitations. I believe this says a lot.

This young man was an adult when baptized. Although he had asked permission to be baptized earlier, his parents said no, and we took the stand that he must honor his parent's decision. He patiently waited until he was an adult. And, btw, adult baptism is common for most protestants. It does not make us a cult.

But let me be clear on this, too. As a Catholic, I'm sure you agree that attendance and participation in mass and the sacraments is part of being a faithful Catholic. This family had not attended a Catholic church in 8 years. Previous to that, their only participation was that their kids went to a Catholic school. The issue at stake was NOT being a Catholic vs a Protestant, but the result of a damaged family. I realize the mom makes it sound as though she was a faithful Catholic, but that just is not the case.

Entity

|2009-02-16 18:02:03

It is actually not so much this case that worries me, but the 20% or so that convert from other denominations. Your site does not just disagree with infant baptism, it disparages it as a means to control the members of a church.

I certainly agree that adult baptism does not make one a cult. My question has more to do with how baptisms from other denominations are viewed. Catholics view baptism by any Christian denomination according to the Trinitarian formula as valid. Some churches view only adult baptism as valid. Some denominations view only baptisms done in their denomination as valid. Some individual churches view only baptisms done at their church as valid, so someone switching from one congregation to another would have to be re-baptized. The more constrained they are, the more cult-like IMO, as it becomes a rite of exclusivity. I am curious as to which your church teaches.

In the Catholic Church, one cannot be re-baptized. If there is a question about it, a conditional baptism is done. Re-baptism can often bring offense to Catholics, which you should be aware of should you perform re-baptisms of former Catholics in front of their families.

I don't doubt that this mom was Catholic in name only based on what she says in the article. I met two different types of Christian groups in college. One tried to convert weak Christians into their denomination of Protestant. Another tried to help weak Christians to become strong Christians in the person's denomination. I can tolerate the first if it is done with honest dialogue, but I found that to be rare.

dardrops

|2009-02-16 18:35:51

I commented on this somewhere else here.

We do accept adult baptisms from other believing churches. But again, we don't require anyone get baptized at all. We believe Christ commands it, but it is not a requirement for salvation. We highly encourage it.

As we believe infants do not have the ability to decide for themselves, and we do not find infant baptism spoken of or commanded in Scripture, it's not something we believe in. But since we don't require baptism for membership in our fellowship, it doesn't matter.

I've also written elsewhere here about whether the mom is a practicing Catholic. She most definitely is not. However, I realize this becomes a "she said, she said" situation. But I've know this family for 6 1/2 years. This puts you in a difficult situation as to who you believe. I'm sorry about that and since you don't know me personally, I realize there's no reason to trust what I say. And there's no way for you to discern this apart from what you read. I'm sorry.

dardrops

|2009-02-16 18:40:02

Oh, darn. I just noticed you said, "I don't doubt that this mom was Catholic in name only..." Sorry. I read too fast. I thought you were saying the opposite. That's what I get for trying to eat dinner and read at the same time. Please forgive me for my error. My bad.

goodmorningmidnight

|2009-02-16 23:27:53

I was introduced to this NE Ohio Xenos in 2005 and am grateful to be a part of this church. I am among the small percentage who was already Christian before being introduced to Xenos.

I became a Christian at the age of 14. For years, albeit somewhat inconsistently, I accompanied a friend to her Baptist church. Since I never doubted that the God of the Bible is God and that Jesus actually lived, I thought I was a Christian. To make a long story short, the moment I learned that salvation requires a heartfelt decision—accepting Christ's death on the cross to forgive my sins, thus beginning an unconditionally endless relationship with Him [Hebrews 10:14]—I jumped on it and prayed this prayer [Romans 10:9-10] with the help of the youth pastor's wife. Shortly thereafter, I was baptized in water in the very same church building where I got saved.

I had also been baptized in water as a baby in a Methodist church.

I never was baptized in water in any Xenos-related baptisms; it wasn't necessary. My post-salvation water baptism is valid Biblically, and it transcends any human-labeled denominations.
4-Him, for instance, was saved in a Lutheran church. I was saved in a Baptist church. Nevertheless, she is my sister in Christ. We have the common bond of the Holy Spirit that is attained only via salvation. I presume that this is why churches like Xenos are non-denominational.

Water baptism has done nothing to secure my place in Heaven, nor did it ever get me anywhere in my standing with God. Thus, it is especially pointless to be water-baptized involuntarily as a baby who is totally incapable of making decisions for oneself.

Where do we see any reference to infant water baptism in the Bible? Conversely, we see baptism solely in the context of people who are old enough to comprehend the good news of Christ: Romans 6:3-4, 1 Peter 3:20-21, etc.

Post-salvation water baptism is a voluntary action. It's a public celebration resulting from a decision that had been made privately between a person and God.

Water baptism symbolizes salvation (i.e., spiritual baptism) thus: our identifying with Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Salvation is not some outward thing that you do; it is an inward decision that only needs our own mouth to communicate it. Just as Christ hasn't been crucified and resurrected repeatedly [Hebrews 10:12], neither do we need to renew our own salvation.

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-17 01:38:01

Thanks for contributing to this discussion, and welcome to Theophiles!

goodmorningmidnight wrote:

Thus, it is especially pointless to be water-baptized involuntarily as a baby who is totally incapable of making decisions for oneself.

Where do we see any reference to infant water baptism in the Bible? Conversely, we see baptism solely in the context of people who are old enough to comprehend the good news of Christ: Romans 6:3-4, 1 Peter 3:20-21, etc.

Well, I would observe that there are several passages which speak of baptizing the convert "and their entire household". I would note that there is no evidence either way as far as whether the presumed wife, kids, slaves, parents, etc. who make up that household would have come to faith at the same time. I'll admit, it's perhaps an indirect argument, but nonetheless, so is "believer's baptism" being The Only Biblical Way.

goodmorningmidnight wrote:

Post-salvation water baptism is a voluntary action. It's a public celebration resulting from a decision that had been made privately between a person and God.

Water baptism symbolizes salvation (i.e., spiritual baptism) thus: our identifying with Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Salvation is not some outward thing that you do; it is an inward decision that only needs our own mouth to communicate it. Just as Christ hasn't been crucified and resurrected repeatedly [Hebrews 10:12], neither do we need to renew our own salvation.

Salvation is not a decision we make. It is the gift of God, the so-called prize after a race we run, a race which we none of us has yet completed. Big difference. "Post-salvation water baptism" is a confusing notion to me, one I do not believe is consistent with Scripture.

Water baptism is indeed a symbol, but it is more; it is a seal & sign of a covenant relationship with God.

Infant baptism, where it is practiced, is also a seal & sign of a promised covenant relationship, where the parents commit before God and the Church to raise the child in the faith. It is now-and-not-yet in the same way as the Kingdom of God is now-and-not-yet. I know we today in America have an real sense of individuality, of free choice, of being anything we want to be, apart from our parents. But that is not so much the worldview of the NT era. Then, the father spoke on behalf of the entire extended family before God. Thus, such passages as refer to the entire household being baptized are to be understood.

emperorbma

|2009-02-17 01:52:15

I was halfway about to make the same post from the Lutheran standpoint. Most of your points are the same as I would have made.

Most of what I'd add would be:
*baptism is seen as a "means of grace" (cf. sola gratia) by which God creates and establishes saving faith (cf. sola fide) in one's heart. [i.e. it is valid from a sola context]
*This is not to say someone cannot come to faith before being baptized, but rather the faith is established and sustained by the Holy Spirit's work in and through the Sacrament of Baptism.
*infant baptism should not be a "sprinkle and forget" phenomenon but the Baptism must become a part of one's Christian experience and we must be daily renewed and convicted in it through the Spirit's work.
*A Baptism is the welcoming of a child into the family of God.
*It is also putting aside our "old Adam" sinful nature and living in Christ, but remembering also that the "old Adam" is a "very good swimmer."
*Of course, we are well aware that in the context of an infant being baptized, if he or she is not actually raised into the Christian faith it may result in an what Luther calls an "empty sign" where they do not actually grow to receive Christ. This is why we also have Bible schools and do a confirmation rite to confirm one's faith in Christ.

dardrops

|2009-02-16 17:27:17

Oops, forgot to mention. Organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ and Inter-Varsity are parachurch organizations. We are not. We have our own statement of faith similar to any denomination. We are our own local church. We do NOT believe we are the only true church by any stretch. We fellowship regularly with Christians in other churches and are thrilled to do so.

We do not require conformity,either. We believe, as do all Protestants, that becoming a Christian is an individual's decision to make and one that is made when old enough to understand what you are doing. We "persuade men" as the Apostle Paul says. We believe that baptism does not save you, but is an outward symbol of an inward change. This is very common among protestants and does not make us a cult.

We also never require anyone to get baptized. We do know that Jesus commands that we get baptized, but if you don't, you are still saved. We do highly encourage it.

We also do not have membership rolls. We believe that when you receive Christ, one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to put you into the Body of Christ. Therefore, your membership is automatic. It's not up to us to decide if you are a member or not.

And yes, if you were baptized as an adult in another believing church, that more than suffices.

Entity

|2009-02-16 15:50:40

After reading this article, which is hateful towards the Catholic Church and has numerous errors (hopefully just mistaken history and not lies), I can understand how any Catholic parent would be angry that their child has been led astray. That article is wrong on so many levels!

[edit] Same goes for this article and this article.

In fact, the more I read the writings on your website, the more I believe the mother is right that you are a cult.

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 16:01:13

Part of it is that they seem to be closely quoting their sources, one of which includes Theopedia and Wikipedia. (fine as heuristics, not good as primary sources)

From what I read from it, it is comparatively mild with respect to its criticality. It certainly is not Jack Chick, to be sure. The words "superstitious" and the like are probably inflammatory from a Catholic perspective, but not too uncommon for many Protestant (and also non-religious) views of Catholicism. Much of the rhetoric seems grounded in internal Protestant perspectives and historiography than in any intended malice.

On my side of the equation, I note that the article certainly has an anti-creedal, and likely Anabaptist, slant. Interestingly enough, the Lutheran Book of Concord and Luther's maintaining of infant baptism and his perspective of "the visible Church as a manifestation of the invisible Church" were not mentioned in the critiques. Calvin, however, received some criticism for his writing of the Institutes. It only seems fair to point that out, even though it is placing my own position with the Reformed in the crosshairs.

Just for reference, from Lutheran and Calvinist perspectives, the creeds are not seen as a supplanting of sola Scriptura but a faithful interpretation of Scriptural truths. Likewise, Lutherans view infant baptism as a "means of grace" which does not rely on the merit of the one receiving it and "creates and establishes" saving faith.

4Him	\|2009-02-16 16:46:41

I don't mean to interrupt here - but...

I attend this fellowship ... by no means(as far as I am concerned) were any of these articles intended to insult or to defame anyone's beliefs concerning their relationship with Christ. Personally I read these articles and took them to be a historical presentation of many of the heated issues that were behind the scenes and played out during the turmoil of the Reformation and from the fall out from the "protestors."

I was raised in the Lutheran church and became a believer in the Lutheran church - I value my Lutheran background and that faith. I credit that church with leading me to my personal relationship with Christ. Somehow in college I fell away from following Christ. I am sure I am not unique in this. I began to attend meetings at Xenos at that time - I was looking for a renewed relationship with God.

I considered myself a member of Xenos fellowship and attended for years while in college. No one ever approached me and told me that I had to be baptised to be a member of that fellowhship or to be "saved."

Many years later I chose to get baptised as an adult - not to secure my salvation or to make myself some sort of official member - but rather it was a personal statement of faith before friends and family - that I was following Christ - as an adult and I wanted to share that joy with everyone who was in attendance.

I just felt moved to share my personal experience with this church. Though I continue to go to Xenos, I still hold the Lutheran church of my youth with high esteem.

Entity - re:

|2009-02-16 17:09:46

4Him wrote:

I don't mean to interrupt here - but...

Please do interrupt. This discussion is open to all, particularly you as it is your church being discussed.

4Him wrote:

Personally I read these articles and took them to be a historical presentation of many of the heated issues that were behind the scenes and played out during the turmoil of the Reformation and from the fall out from the "protestors."

The problem is that they are a misrepresentation of history. If Xenos wants to argue theology, wonderful. But if they do this by lies and distortions, they are preying on those who don't know the historical truth and making them detest the churches they belong to.

Now, I'm glad that you still esteem your Lutheran background. However, apparently enough despise their former denominations that Xenos actually tells them not to name their church or denomination when they talk about their 'previous negative church experience'.

dardrops

|2009-02-16 17:51:33

What "lies" and "distortions" do you see? Please, let's clear that up.

I am sure the Reformers were accused of lying and distorting, too. Is this not a long term disagreement between Catholicism and Protestantism? I do not see Xenos Christian Fellowship being unique in their assessment of church history. I mean, wow, is this not what the Reformation was about? We are in good company with most Protestants here.

In fact, our theology is very definitely Dispensational. We have theological differences with the Reformed tradition. This does not mean we think they are non-Christians at all. We have much fellowship with those of the Reformed tradition. D. A. Carson is one of my heroes.

The same goes for Catholics. We are well aware that we have brothers and sisters in Christ who are Catholic and fellowship with them, too. But we definitely have disagreements. :)

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 20:39:40

To pass the time, let me try to preface the discussion a bit.

My assessment of the situation is that many of Entity's critiques regarding this are that some of these articles promulgate myths from the time of the Reformation that don't really accurately represent the doctrine at the time or modern practice of Catholics. I think his major concern is that someone from a Catholic background might feel guilt about his or her former religion and family because of some of these myths.

From my own experience with this (and I've gotten into it with Entity before we buried the hatchet), it is sometimes rather hard to present the history case from a point of view that is not offensive. It is especially problematic because, at least as I was going, there is a need to feel out the positions to understand where they are coming from. An example in my own case is that Catholics are none to enthusiastic about the Lutheran Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope. On the one hand, I cannot really discount it since (being a part of the Book of Concord), I think it is a faithful interpretation of Scripture and it is also a historical fact of Lutheranism. On the other hand, it has some understandably offensive conclusions from a Catholic standpoint. (i.e. Pope as antichrist) Even though we Catholics and Protestants get along today there is still some bad blood from the past that we need to work around as fellow Christians and be careful about how we tread.

I don't mean to speak for Entity here, since I'm not entirely sure where all of his concerns come from although I've got a fair idea. I'm sure he will be willing to provide you with specifics of what he considered upsetting from your articles. He is usually pretty good about providing the Catholic view on stuff. (PinocchiosFurniture may or may not have other opinions on this matter, however.)

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 20:13:19

Feel free to interrupt, it is good that you replied. I didn't mean to suggest that y'all were really hostile to what we Lutherans teach and I certainly didn't mean to come off as doing that.

The main thing I wanted to do with my post was to draw a parallel between how we Lutherans consider the Book of Concord to be a faithful representation of Scriptural teaching (the only reason Lutherans subscribe to it, in fact), even while clearly maintaining that the true authority is that of Scripture only. In this article, it seemed to criticize the Reformed position on the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. From my (admittedly limited) perspective, it seems to me like they use them in a similar manner to which we Lutherans use the Book of Concord. In that case, it is not intended as a replacement for Scripture, but rather as a representation of Scripture being faithfully interpreted. holmegm is our resident Reformed person, so he could probably correct me if I misunderstood the Calvinist use of the Institutes.

At any rate, while I clearly don't agree with John Calvin's interpretations or conclusions, I feel it only fair that I should note that we Lutherans have been using the Book of Concord in a similar manner to his Institutes since the beginning of the Reformation. (For the history buffs, the original *defining* Lutheran document was actually the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, but the Book of Concord (published in 1580) collects this and the other important texts that define Lutheran teaching about Scriptural truths)

holmegm - re:

|2009-02-19 13:45:41

emperorbma wrote:

In this article, it seemed to criticize the Reformed position on the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin. From my (admittedly limited) perspective, it seems to me like they use them in a similar manner to which we Lutherans use the Book of Concord. In that case, it is not intended as a replacement for Scripture, but rather as a representation of Scripture being faithfully interpreted. holmegm is our resident Reformed person, so he could probably correct me if I misunderstood the Calvinist use of the Institutes.

I find the linked article rather puzzling.

Institutes of the Christian Religion is a scholarly and polemical work, which uses scripture, church history, writings of the fathers, and reason to examine issues of Christianity and the church.

Like every other human being in existence, including those postmodernish humans who deny that they do so, Calvin thinks he's right about what he believes. But he certainly never intended to write something of equal authority to scripture, and would find the idea abhorrent.

holmegm - re: re:

|2009-02-19 14:05:06

holmegm wrote:

Institutes of the Christian Religion is a scholarly and polemical work, which uses scripture, church history, writings of the fathers, and reason to examine issues of Christianity and the church.

Or in simpler words, it's a guy trying to figure some stuff out, using reasoned argument and source material.

It's a challenging read, whether you like what he's saying or not. Even on a merely practical level, the image of armies of zombie-like Reformed followers slavishly adhering to it that the article seems to be going for is absurd.

Not that this wouldn't necessarily be an improvement ...

wezlo

|2009-02-20 11:35:21

Quote:

Or in simpler words, it's a guy trying to figure some stuff out, using reasoned argument and source material.

Wait, how's that different from postmodernish people? You just defined the postmodern perspective...

laika

|2009-02-20 22:12:44

wezlo, quoting holmegm wrote:

Quote:

Or in simpler words, it's a guy trying to figure some stuff out, using reasoned argument and source material.

Wait, how's that different from postmodernish people? You just defined the postmodern perspective...

hmmm... but wouldn't a post-modern be more likely to sample many and diverse traditions and religions and arrive at nothing in particular? or, sample many and diverse traditions and religions and fashion for himself a playful pastiche of all of them?

or did i in my historical ignorance miss your point entire and fail to recognize that that's what you're saying Calvin did :-)

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-16 15:56:00

Entity wrote:

In fact, the more I read the writings on your website, the more I believe the mother is right that you are a cult.

I'm probably going out on a limb here, not having read the referenced articles, but you know, being anti-Catholic alone is not sufficient to be called a cult. I'm just saying, your discussion is about the rhetoric being anti-Catholic, and then you switch to the cult thing. If you intended something else, it might be good to actually say it. :-)

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 16:04:32

Yup and for the record, I don't consider doctrinal disagreement as grounds for a cult label.

Entity

|2009-02-16 16:08:56

Doctrinal disagreement implies that one takes issue with a denomination's actual doctrines. This is fear-mongering through lies.

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 16:38:13

The use of cult is a rather hard thing. We may need to apply some cult checklist techniques before we label something a cult.

The Xenos group, from what I see, is only guilty of using some inaccurate information about other Christian denominations [Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, primarily] in its publications. That may or may not be intentional and we haven't even established that this isn't simply due to strong Protestant/Anabaptist convictions. Lest we forget, many Anabaptists have said similar things about the Catholic Church and other traditional Christian denominations. Even so, this clearly does not stoop to a Jack Chick level from the links you gave us.

What I'm not seeing here is the large scale mind-control techniques or massive militancy or "holding people's sins over their head" that distinguish a sect from a cult.

Entity

|2009-02-16 16:53:37

Quote:

What I'm not seeing here is the large scale mind-control techniques or massive militancy or "holding people's sins over their head" that distinguish a sect from a cult.

You won't see it on the Word of God's website either, but I can assure you they are cultish.

Is Xenos a full-fledged cult? Well, if your definition is Peoples Temple or Heaven's Gate, probably not. If your definition is more expansive and may include Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Moonies, or groups like the Word of God, I see definite cult tendencies on their website. Certainly enough cult tendencies to worry many parents.

Quote:

That may or may not be intentional

When it was just one article, I was thinking that it could be just misinformed. The more I read, the more I became convinced that it minimally rises to the "Catholics (and probably Orthodox) are not Christian" level and appears to be aimed at beyond Catholics to all organized religion in a divisive enough way as to make one despise their previous denomination.

Entity

|2009-02-16 16:06:21

Nope. I meant cult. Are they anti-Catholic? Certainly. Their website is full of lies about the Catholic Church. Why I call them cultish is that it appears that they use these lies to separate young people at least spiritually from their families. It is one thing to disagree with another religion. It is another to make someone fear and detest their previous denomination. This is the same behavior I saw happen with the Christian cults on my college campus.

metallurge

|2009-02-16 16:13:20

Dude, the Reformation happened a long time ago. Are all Protestant churches cults? They would seem to be, by what you are saying here...

Entity

|2009-02-16 16:37:32

Do Protestant churches tell lies about Catholics to the point where converts detest their previous denomination and this would lead to division in the family? There certainly are some Protestant cults out there, but most are not.

As mentioned in a previous post, I grew up in a cultish community. I saw some of the talk they have on website and how it affected families. I knew people who wouldn't talk to their own parents or siblings because they feared that they would try to suck them back into their 'old ways'. Mind you, these old ways weren't evil ways. They just weren't "get together 2-4 times a week for prayer meetings, avoid the bars, and have an intimate spiritual adviser" ways.

Read through their site. This group reviles any but like-minded Christians. They should not be surprised when some Christians revile them.

metallurge

|2009-02-16 17:12:33

What was it we were to be known by? I can't quite remember just now... :-)

Look, I understand that you are coming at this issue with some personal history. And I understand that there is plenty of vicious anti-Catholic rhetoric out there in the world.

And I think that any group which is mostly about being "not-X" (pick an X) is fundamentally distracted from following Jesus.

You are observing schism in action when you speak of families being torn apart like that. It is an utterly evil thing. You will not get disagreement from me on that.

But I think that, really, it is wiser to refrain from slapping the "cult" label on things. "Cult" has Jim Jones or Charles Manson connotations that almost always are going to be inaccurate. Once you slap the label on, it's like you are devaluing the other person, cutting them off, dehumanizing them. Perhaps there are some people for whom this must be done. But it's really pretty rare.

Plus, there are plenty of atheists who would love to slap a cult label on the church, generally. It is simply not wise to paint with a broad brush in this matter.

laika

|2009-02-16 16:42:45

metallurge wrote:

Dude, the Reformation happened a long time ago. Are all Protestant churches cults?

that's good question, really, but i'm surprised that no Prots have up and pointed out that most of them believe that the RCC is the biggest cult of all.

i would say that most Protestant churches in America are simply communities of like-minded people loosely based on Christianity, but not cults. the prosperity stuff seems kinda cult-ish and there's frequently a cult of personality in those mega-churches, but that has more to do with practices and teachings based on popular culture than with actual Christianity.

dardrops

|2009-02-16 20:37:42

Mmmmm, I'm not sure most Protestants would say they are "loosely based on Christianity." I would think most Protestants, and I could be wrong, would say we are strongly based on the Bible. Our unity is not due to "like-mindedness" but to the fact that, as believers, we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and baptized (not water baptism but literally, "put into")the universal Body of Christ. Our unity is not due to the fact that we are all alike or all think alike (geez, look at all the different denominations) but is an organic unity completely accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 21:12:51

I wouldn't say "loosely based" either, but then I'm also a Protestant.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think metallurge was meaning something along the lines of: "by rejecting tradition too strongly Protestants have in many ways set ourselves up for problems like "prosperity gospel" and megachurches and pop-culture cafeteria Christianity."

Reading the Pelikan stuff will generally enlighten as to where he's coming from here. A quick summary would be to say that he's not referring to embracing empty traditionalism but rather something like a "living tradition centered around the Gospel of Jesus Christ." From his perspective, this is something Protestants either lack badly (the most) or have in some form despite the implicit denial of it. (the few)

(to metallurge: iz gud summary? can has cookie?)

metallurge

|2009-02-16 21:16:13

Sounds like a cookie to me, emperor...

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 21:23:21

Yay, cookie... "om nom nom nom nom"

laika

|2009-02-17 00:46:08

dardrops wrote:

Our unity is not due to the fact that we are all alike or all think alike (geez, look at all the different denominations) but is an organic unity completely accomplished by the Holy Spirit.

welcome to TheoPhiles and thanks for dropping in!

respectfully, i'm thinking that "an organic unity completely accomplished by the Holy Spirit" wouldn't consist of so many endlessly splitting denominations. and being alike and thinking alike is not a bad thing in matters of Christianity.

emperorbma

|2009-02-17 01:20:26

laika wrote:

respectfully, i'm thinking that "an organic unity completely accomplished by the Holy Spirit" wouldn't consist of so many endlessly splitting denominations. and being alike and thinking alike is not a bad thing in matters of Christianity.

Martin Luther lamented after he began to see the divisions and redivisions forming. That's one of the reasons that he started the work on the Formula of Concord to provide a basis of agreement for at least some of the Reformation churches.

dardrops

|2009-02-16 17:36:53

I must respectfully disagree with you. See my earlier post about how we handle minors who attend our fellowship. Parental permission required. As a matter of fact, our goal is to reconcile families, never to draw them away from their families. This mother from the article threw her son out when he wanted to get baptized, he did not leave of his volition. In addition, he calls them frequently and emails regularly. They will not respond.

We see issues of disagreement as just that - disagreements. We believe that there are Christians in most mainline churches. In concert with that, we also believe that there are non-Christians in every church including in our own fellowship. People can confess with their mouths that they are saved, but only God can see their hearts.

1 Corinthians 2:2 (NASB)
2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

Jim	\|2009-02-17 13:56:36

Yummy. You seem to be doing the same thing that my community is up to, though we definitely have a Brethren in Christ flavor to ours.

PinocchiosFurniture - Mother, Do You Think They'll Drop the Bomb?

|2009-02-16 17:08:19

Wow!

Sounds like one sicko mom to me and reminds me of the lyrics to Pink Floyd's "Mother":

Quote:

Hush now baby, baby, don't you cry
Momma's gonna make all of your nightmares come true
Momma's gonna put all of her fears into you
Momma's gonna keep you right here under her wing
She won't let you fly, but she might let you sing
Momma's will keep Baby cozy and warm
Oooo Babe
Oooo Babe
Ooo Babe, of course Momma's gonna help build the wall...

Momma won't let anyone dirty get through
Momma's gonna wait up until you get in
Momma will always find out where you've been
Momma's gonna keep Baby healthy and clean
Oooo Babe
Oooo Babe
Ooo Babe, you'll always be Baby to me

Where was this 'Mother' who since the 4th grade hasn't even taken her son to Mass?

It's too late for her now.

The son is an 'adult' and entitled to be brainwashed by a cult if that is what he wants....

emperorbma - Is Christ divided against himself?

|2009-02-14 15:55:35

I'm thinking this woman may do well to remove the log from her eye before considering the splinter in her son's eye. Just because it isn't Roman Catholic (TM) Christianity doesn't automatically make it a cult. Is Xenos using coercive means? Are they torturing people to make them believe? No one comes to faith in Christ except by the work of the Holy Spirit. If there is real faith Christ, then do not deny it is the work of the Holy Spirit.

It's funny here, since I didn't see anything to suggest that the Xenos folks denied that Catholics were Christian. So why the disproportionate response? Is not Roman Catholicism a Christian religion? If that is so, then is it not a Roman Catholic mother's duty, instead of merely raising a Roman Catholic child, to be raising a Christian child. It seems like you cannot have a real Roman Catholic child without the Christianity... but from the boy's own mouth he said he didn't know the Lord! If a person finds a relationship with the Lord, but it is in a church which is not of your denomination should you really be knocking the work of the Holy Spirit? I should think she should be rejoicing that he came to Christ rather than mouthing off about how he found Christ.

The rhetoric here is that of an old fashioned "god off." (to borrow a Stargate-ism) The trouble is that the same God is being wielded against himself. Step back for a second and consider what Christ says about "division." Is it not Satan who is divided against himself!? (Matthew 12:26; Mark 3:26; Luke 11:18) So why would we divide God against Himself?

Did not Paul write:

Quote:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, I follow Paul, or I follow Apollos, or I follow Cephas, or I follow Christ.

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. (1 Corinthians 1:10-17)

If it was a scandal in the first 20 years of the Church, how much more of a scandal is it after the first 2000 years?! Even if we do not share the same denomination or the same interpretation of Scripture, we must make it clear that we share the same Christ lest we should fall as Satan fell. To wit, God will not divide against Himself and those who try to make Him divide against Himself are committing a dangerous sin.

Here we have a Catholic, who by definition should be worshiping Jesus Christ, saying that her son, who also worships Jesus, is not following Christ but rather a cult. I know no other name to call it but insulting the work of the Holy Spirit. The Pharisees, too, committed this and Christ warned them that the blasphemy of the Spirit is unforgivable.

It is unforgivable, not because it cannot be forgiven being a worse sin, but rather because it literally undermines the redeeming work of God Himself. In such a state the blasphemer must both know the truth (as I presume this mother does) and yet continually and intentionally blaspheme the work of Christ's redemption even unto death. This is the same sort of wrongness, in many ways, as claiming Catholics are not Christians.

It is, perhaps, in this kind of situation that there is actually a grave risk of blaspheming the Spirit as Christ warns. The Pharisees blasphemed Christ's work because of their pride and is not the mother in this case blaspheming Christ's work because of pride? My warning is repent now, for to slander the work of Christ s if it were a work of evil is the the most dangerous evil in itself. Just because it doesn't have the seal of the Pope doesn't mean it isn't Christian. Has the past Millennium (since 1054) taught us nothing about how the Church is not tied to only one denomination but, rather, is defined only by its faith in one Lord Jesus Christ?

Shoot, even Martin Luther (despite whatever negative acts he may be faulted with) actually considered Roman Catholics Christians albeit ones in grave error. If that can be said to be true why shouldn't the Xenos folks receive the same benefit of the doubt from Catholics? Is Vatican II meaningless for her or what?

emperorbma - (self critique)

|2009-02-14 17:02:55

Yup, I figured the Marburg Colloquy was gonna pose a problem for my previous post. Luther does say Zwingli is of "another Spirit" and considers his groupies not Christians.

In that respect, I think, Luther was rejecting Zwingli's spirit of rationalism (by which he arrived at the denial of Real Presence) as unchristian since it undermined the spirit of child-like faith to which we are called as Christians. I don't think he was saying those who were deceived by the error or indoctrinated into it were not Christian, only that the spirit by which the error was arrived at was not Christian (cf. "Reason, the whore of the devil" vis a vis denial of Real Presence) and, in consequence, that he could not support such doctrines in good conscience. In any case, I probably shot myself in the foot for the potency of my argument through this miscalculation. (... and for those who are offended by the reason thing, you know who you are, Luther also calls reason a "gift of God." The context is important and Luther is only criticizing the abuses of reason and not its good uses.)

At the very least, I wouldn't think any modern Lutheran rejects Anabaptists or Reformed as literally non-Christian despite the rationalistic error involved in the inception of those movements as seen from the Lutheran perspective. Other than that, I've got no problem saying Luther's rhetoric can go overboard at times. Fortunately for my sanity, this "Zwingli is of another spirit" dialog is not in the Book of Concord (so it isn't an official position) and I had only implied that the calling folks non-Christian was only a warning sign of problems and not an actual accusation. I think the summary is that I'll just have to call it a "risk factor" for usurping the Spirit rather than an actual instance and leave it at that.

[To the confused outlooker, this is me debating with my own conscience. Yeah, yeah... I can't just leave well enough alone but at least we know I'm not intentionally dishonest and actually considered this potential blowback of my argument.]

wezlo - Zwingli Roller Coaster

|2009-02-17 06:53:45

At Eastern we came up with a "Reformation Theme Park" with rides based on the idiosyncrasies of the different reformers.

Zwingli's was a roller coaster that took you up to the top of a hill where there was a sign posted that read, "The Flesh Profiteth Nothing!"

After that the track ended.

metallurge

|2009-02-17 07:36:18

That is awesome!

wezlo

|2009-02-17 09:03:33

Thanks, the anabaptist log flume was also interesting...

Entity

|2009-02-17 10:02:47

Full immersion?

metallurge

|2009-02-17 10:49:11

...while tied to the log?

Jim	\|2009-02-17 13:53:22

Better. You get in, the "safety bar" comes down and they turn the whole thing upside down.

It should be pointed out that I was one of the anabaptists who came up with the idea.

Entity

|2009-02-17 14:23:32

How many times do they repeat this experience?

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-17 14:43:20

Entity wrote:

How many times do they repeat this experience?

Until the sin is gone.

emperorbma

|2009-02-17 14:58:20

Quote:

Until the sin is gone.

Spin cycle?

Entity

|2009-02-14 18:00:08

A few things:

1) There are many Christian cults around. I grew up in a group that was at least cultish, with overbearing leadership that controlled where people lived and worked, who they dated, and influenced how many children they had. Those who broke the rules were unofficially shunned. We were cautioned about associating with non-group members. This group was composed of both Catholic and Protestant members who were expected to attend the parish/churches associated with the group.

2) My experience with some non-denominational churches is that many have cultish aspects. They often do not recognize baptisms done by other churches, whether infant or believer's. Often they are run by very charismatic leaders. Often they have some extra rules that pressure from other members makes sure are followed.

3) Seeing as this woman's husband is in the adult industry and she has hosted "passion parties", I suspect she would view even an orthodox Catholic parish as a cult.

SteveGus

|2009-02-15 16:45:43

Quote:

Seeing as this woman's husband is in the adult industry and she has hosted "passion parties"

My God, did you see the picture? This is the stuff of nightmare.

"Honor your father and mother", so says the old law. But Jesus predicted that his message would cause family drama.

How do you deal with people whose relationship with their parents is uncomfortable? In a situation like this, where the mother is carrying on and carrying signs and wants to have her son thrown in prison, it frankly does not seem unreasonable for the son to tell her to sit down, shut up, and refuse further contact with her. What sort of "honor" is due to a manipulative and unpleasant parent?

4Him - re: Slander?

|2009-02-16 14:04:45

So nice to see that the "God Lovers" have taken an interest in the ABJ article when we have received so much attention from the "God Haters" of late.
[quote=metallurge]Xenos is a classical "emergent church", centered on small groups rather than large corporate worship services.[quote]

I was a little surprised to see our fellowship described as "classical emergent" since Xenos emerged out of the fundamental church back in the 70's.

True, Xenos finds many of the emergent methods useful like being culturally relevant, "doing" church in a non-formal manner, and of course, asking questions, but we are grounded in absolute truth.

Emergent is a broad spectrum. On one end there are those who identify themselves with the conversation without grounding themselves in the authority of inerrant scripture. It's all about the journey - the conversation. On the other end, there are those who are bound by the authority of scripture and by propositional truth, but who agree that church needs to be "done" so that the gospel can reach the culture. Xenos falls into the latter.

Classic emergent churches dialogue concerning the truth of the person of Jesus Christ, sin, hell, the authority of scripture, and salvation. Xenos does not consider itself an emergent church. Here is a link to an article which discusses how the emergent church moves away from fundamental truths.

http://neozine.org/inside/synopsis-of-t he-emergent-church/

Thanks again for taking an interest in the ABJ article. It nice to see that our ministry has "emerged" on your site.

4Him	\|2009-02-16 14:22:07

I thought I'd fix this link.
http://neozine.org/inside/synopsis-of-t he-emer...

metallurge - re: re: Slander?

|2009-02-16 15:45:38

I am glad we are getting the chance to talk, and I am getting the chance to clarify.

I intended the "classic" modifier to be a positive one. You guys were doing this a long time before it became "the next big thing".

Now, "emergent" means different things to different people. Trust me, we have had the flame wars here already. I'm not interested in being a reactionary, or in labeling you as something you are not comfortable with. I did not mean it as a sign of disrespect.

But I would strongly disagree that "emergent" means something inherently negative. Then again, I am not a fundamentalist. Nor, for that matter, am I "emergent". Kinda sad that we are talking more about which labels we will accept or reject for ourselves, isn't it?

I think Xenos is ecclesiastically interesting on its own merits, and either dodging or adopting labels for it is probably not the right way to understand it. Sorry if I contributed to the confusion.

As an aside, I am from SW Ohio, and I wish I had known about you guys back when I lived there. Of course, I wasn't a Christian then, so I guess the timing wasn't right. :-)

4Him	\|2009-02-16 16:20:01

I gotta say, "I just love this site." To be able to engage in conversation about issues that matter is so refreshing. I plan on staying abreast of the current topics being discussed.

Honestly, I wasn't offended being described of as "classic." I merely felt the need to clarify where our ministry stands within the spectrum of "emergent" or "emerging." The reason for the clarification on my side was that so many people today hear emergent and then conclude that our ministry does not value scripture as truth.

As for labels - UGH. I just hate using them - so much gets lost in understanding as to where someone stands - or what they believe when labels are used. Frankly, I perfer to be known as a "Christ follower," but then alas another label.

Thanks for your interest in our fellowship. If you ever make back this way, we'd love to have you check out who we "do" church.

metallurge

|2009-02-16 16:58:11

Yep, ThP at its best is something pretty special. Welcome to the conversation!

I will observe that I am more than a little leery of the whole inerrancy/scriptural truth debate, because I think it tends to be more of a political football than a legitimate theological debate. I don't even like the language, because it seems to be mostly about framing the debate in such a way as to bushwhack the other guy. Not criticizing you, just letting you know where I am. I do understand where you are coming from; I've been there myself.

I may indeed be back in Ohio at some point, and if I do I will stop by sometime.

PinocchiosFurniture - Comical: Luther Was Like This Woman

|2009-02-16 17:29:36

Quote:

Shoot, even Martin Luther (despite whatever negative acts he may be faulted with) actually considered Roman Catholics Christians albeit ones in grave error. If that can be said to be true why shouldn't the Xenos folks receive the same benefit of the doubt from Catholics? Is Vatican II meaningless for her or what?

Invoking the name of Luther as a paragon of Christian virtue and tolerance of other Christians is comical.

Luther was exactly LIKE this woman.

He publically picketed and mocked Catholic Churches...

He ordered his disciples to steal the contents of Catholic Churches and burn them...

He persecuted members of the Catholic Faith who did not agree with him...

This woman also appears to believe that the Xenos fellowship Christians are actual Christians too, just ones 'in grave error'.

Much more in common with Luther, this woman, than not....

Division is what division does.

It insists its darkened erroneous ways are enlightened, and is never content to go that way alone....

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 19:41:20

Quote:

Invoking the name of Luther as a paragon of Christian virtue and tolerance of other Christians is comical.

I think I already granted that Luther's actions were, quite understandably, considered offensive by Catholics when I said "despite whatever negative acts he may be faulted with." Do be kind enough not to read words into my mouth which I did not say, since I never claimed him as a paragon of tolerance. I even noted a specific case (i.e. the Marburg Colloquy) in a subsequent self-reply where Luther's actions weren't exactly tolerant by modern understanding. The point was that Luther, while he did reject vehemently what he considered to be Roman Catholic errors, still considered Catholics to be Christians. This mother is pulling the "doomsday cult" label out of her hat, by contrast, simply because her child was successfully brought to Christ by a non-Catholic group.

Since you decided to claim that Luther instigated church looting, let us be clear that Luther never commanded anyone to loot churches. He actually decried those who did participate in looting, in fact. I suggest you read about the tract: Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants which he wrote against those who had misinterpreted his theology as giving them license to do just that. Please try to remain factual in criticisms.

4Him - re: re:

|2009-02-16 17:37:03

Entity wrote:

Wow...I surely wouldn't want lies being printed on our site. Please feel free to comment on the articles at our site. The site is open for anyone to post their thoughts. If there are falsehoods, please point them out so that they can be corrected.

I do not have a Catholic background, nor have I studied much of Catholic history. I would appreciate hearing your insights as well as having the accurate information presented.

What sources do you recommend for someone who is a "newbie" learning about the history of the Catholic church? I'd like to so some independent reading/research.

metallurge

|2009-02-16 17:52:01

I'm not Roman Catholic, and I'm not Entity, but I have studied Church history a good deal. Anything by Jaroslav Pelikan is worth reading in this area.

In order, from most accessible to most scholarly, I recommend Pelikan's "Jesus Through the Centuries" as being particularly excellent, ideally in the original hardback edition with the color plates (not the later square coffee table "enhanced" edition which isn't). Everett Ferguson's "Backgrounds of Early Christianity" is excellent and affordable in the two earlier editions I own (haven't seen the latest one). Finally, we have Pelikan's 5-volume (yet affordable) "The Christian Tradition" set which is unparalleled IMHO.

FWIW. YMMV. Yadda Yadda.

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 20:51:08

Speaking of which, did you want me to return A Vindication of Tradition?

metallurge - Nope.

|2009-02-16 20:58:01

Already picked up another copy at Half Price Books. It's yours.

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 20:58:51

'kay. I was just askin' cause it looked like you might be loaning one to 4Him. :P

wezlo

|2009-02-17 06:55:53

I second Pelikan - it's great stuff (sorry to jump into the party late).

Entity

|2009-02-16 18:30:02

I'd like to so some independent reading/research.

I'm glad to hear this. You won't find many independent sites. It would be like asking a Catholic to state what you believe, what a Lutheran believes, and what a Catholic believes. I would be thrilled if he even got the last one right. So, if you want to learn about Catholic theology, you'll need Catholic websites.

Probably the best out there is Catholic.com. I would start on their Tracts page. The other site I would recommend is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I'll try to comment on neozine.org on the errors in history or regarding Catholic doctrine. My suggestion is that the editors of that site search on the word 'Catholic' and see if they can find basis for the comments made about history in non-Protestant history books and comments regarding Catholic theology in official Catholic doctrine.

Some starters:

Catholics do not believe in Five-point Calvinism, even if wrongly called Augustinianism, as it ignores two out of three of his fundamental principals of grace. http://neozine.org/inside/restless-reformed/ See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm#II

The recent article on Transubstantiation and Tradition is hateful and is filled with errors. See this article for a start.

Unfortunately, I have to leave for the night, so I will try to address more tomorrow.

metallurge - Tradition reference

|2009-02-16 19:56:09

IMHO, the best defense of Church Tradition was written, somewhat ironically, by a Lutheran scholar. Plenty of misunderstandings are dealt with in this excellent short book. Pelikan's "The Vindication of Tradition" is highly recommended.

I know, I am Pelikan-heavy in my recommendations. But he really was one of the best scholars and writers of his generation, IMHO. And you can be sure that he is not writing from a non-Protestant bias, which is important to many. And his books are very reasonably priced. Not much not to like.

By way of disclosure, late in his life, Pelikan did convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. But I won't hold that against him. :-)

Entity

|2009-02-16 19:58:12

I did like his condensed book, The Pelikan Brief.

metallurge

|2009-02-16 19:59:25

Argh!!! :-)

4Him	\|2009-02-16 20:03:44

Oh good ... I thought that was a joke ... glad I got it. (snicker, snicker)

4Him	\|2009-02-16 20:09:02

Hmmm...I just checked some wiki information on Pelikan. Looks like he and I have a lot in common. Both born in Akron and have a back ground in the Missouri synod Lutheran Church.

I must say I have always enjoyed Luther's work.

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 20:57:39

Quote:

I must say I have always enjoyed Luther's work.

Indeed, if it wasn't for Lutheran theology I'd probably not have become Christian.

4Him	\|2009-02-16 21:10:16

Sola fide, sola scriptura, sola gratia

These embody the beliefs that brought me to Christ. Although I no longer attend the Lutheran church, I still hold fast to these.

jsmalley - Let the Love of the Brethren Continue...

|2009-02-17 00:41:13

You know, I've attended Xenos Christian Fellowship since I was in 7th grade. Growing up in a fundamentalist christian home, which attended the Chapel in Akron while I was in 7th grade at the time, I found myself very much not close to the church. Every time Sunday would come up I'd show signs of disapproval of going to church. I disliked the singing and sitting in pews for an hour, especially at my age!

However, one fateful day I was invited to a junior-high bible study by my friends Kyle and Steve and I gave it a go, they were my friends and I liked being with friends. It was undoubtedly the coolest experience I've ever had at church! I was actually able to be my energetic, crazy self and enjoy studying the bible! We'd study the bible for a good half-hour and then we'd do something kids actually enjoyed doing! Played video games, went to taco bell, watched scary movies!

The greatest experience though, was the spiritual conversations or confrontations because I was not the most pleasant kid to be around. I started out pretty savage, reckless, super-short tempered, and always had outbursts of hissy fits and anger. I was actually cared for by my peers and leaders. I faced admonishment for some issues I caused between friends of mine, but I was never punished, rather offered grace and a chance to repent. To this day even, I am still offered the same kind of loving grace. Yet this time, I am making the effort to reach out and love others through God's love and grace.

If Xenos were a child-brainwashing cult, I would not have improved so much in my character. Received Christ as my personal savior. I wouldn't be living on my own in a ministry house with 3 of my greatest friends and brothers in Christ. I wouldn't have such joy and gratitude to God for the wonderful Body of Christ he has put me in. They are the greatest blessing the Lord has ever given me. Heh, the many blessings I've received are often impossible to count.

jsmalley - oh

|2009-02-17 00:42:38

oh and if anyone were wondering, I am currently in my first year of college.

metallurge - Nice

|2009-02-17 01:41:59

Thanks for this! And welcome to Theophiles!

A little personal testimony can go a long way toward clarification of spiritual matters.

Blessings!

Entity

|2009-02-17 08:21:35

Welcome! I'm glad we have so many members of Xenos visiting us.

What is a ministry house? Do many people in Xenos live in them?

dardrops

|2009-02-17 08:40:08

A ministry house is simply what it sounds like. They choose to live together because they have a common purpose - to serve the Body of Christ and to serve the nonbelieving world. They call it a ministry house because they minster to each other and the world. It is not required nor do all people in Xenos live in a ministry house. In fact, very few do. They are either all single guys or all single girls, all college age. It is a way to support and encourage each other and be hospitable to others. There is no financial obligation except to pay the rent, utilities, etc. Just like any friends choosing to live together, but with a common purpose. Look at it like a Christian frat or sorority house without all the pledging, hazing, sex, and drugs. :)

Some of our college people still live at home, some live in the dorm, and some live in a ministry house. Personal choice and no pressure.

wezlo

|2009-02-17 09:06:20

Hi dardrops, thanks for stopping by.

You just need to put in language that Entity would already be familiar with.

Entity, it's like a semi-monastic house under the guidance of Xenos Christian fellowship.

dardrops

|2009-02-17 09:16:25

Okay, but if I learn Entity's "language" will Entity also learn mine?

To be frank, when I see the word "monastic" even when linked with "semi-", it gives this Protestant the shivers.

Really, I'm just kidding.

Thanks, wezlo.

wezlo

|2009-02-17 11:09:04

Quote:

Okay, but if I learn Entity's "language" will Entity also learn mine?

That would be necessary for communication, yes.

Entity

|2009-02-17 10:14:11

Actually, I was wondering if it was like Servants of the Word, a group of guys who live together, pledged to remain single for the rest of their lives, pooling all their money, sharing everything with minimal personal property, required community prayer times, with a very rigid authority structure, in service to God and the local Christian group. They were a quasi-religious order but took it to an extreme.

While it was made up primarily of charismatic Catholics, who are cultish in their own right, it had Christians of all denominations (or none).

However, it sounds like Missionary Houses are different.

dardrops

|2009-02-17 10:45:57

I'm laughing...

Yes, our ministry (not missionary) houses are quite different. Very, very different.

Ya gotta remember - we're not Catholic. No vows of celibacy required. Their communal property consists of milk, bread, cereal, etc. Even then, they often forget to go to the grocery store. They are college students after all.

They're buds.

Entity

|2009-02-17 11:06:27

Many of those guys are not Catholic. I think many came to this group because their Protestant churches had no form of dedicated religious life.

Your Missionary Houses sound a lot like some of the Intervarsity houses that were around my campus. Having an actual term for them is what piqued my interest.

goodmorningmidnight

|2009-02-17 13:51:19

I lived with single women my age for a year-and-a-half (the second year was cut short because I moved out early to get married). I had various roommates, only one who had been there from the time I moved in till I moved out. We had plenty of new women who moved in, and some moved out.

Where I lived, there was some craziness and tension, but those friendships are stronger than ever, and these women are still my closest friends. (Ever hear the advice never to live with friends? Well, it's true unless you're willing to work thru problems.)

Moreover, I grew so much spirirtually, and I knew going into the first lease signing that this would happen. My efforts to live for the Lord had been pretty lame, and I knew that the only way I'd ever grow in my relationship with Him would be to be immersed in Christian community. Mainly, I in my whimsical ways needed accountability.
I don't know how unique reason this is to live in Christian community, this was mine. I knew that this was my chance to really grow in the Lord, and I am soooooo grateful that I took that chance.

I loved my ministry home experience, even when it was at its worst. I have matured so much since moving out, and I have worked through issues with these sisters in Christ. I love them very much.

I'd recommend this experience for anyone willing to take the challenge.

goodmorningmidnight - re: re:

|2009-02-17 14:12:16

dardrops wrote:

Wouldn't the loving thing to do is keep the lies of communication open so that in the future you could persuade them differently?

Okay, I hope that quote code works....Anyway, dardrops, I know you meant "lines," not "lies." Just a gentle typographical correction in case anyone misunderstands what you meant.

goodmorningmidnight

|2009-02-17 14:13:09

How did this comment wind up all the way up here??????

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-17 14:23:20

goodmorningmidnight wrote:

How did this comment wind up all the way up here??????

It's a "feature" of AJAX, I am told... Sorry. Gotta hit both Reply (to position it right) and Quote (to pull in the original post) to get it to do the right thing. Unless I have the sequence backwards. But you do have to do both.

wezlo

|2009-02-17 11:07:49

That's why I pointed out that they were under the care of a Larger church, and not off on their own...

PinocchiosFurniture - re:

|2009-02-16 22:53:01

emperorbma wrote:

Quote:

Invoking the name of Luther as a paragon of Christian virtue and tolerance of other Christians is comical.

Luther's attacks were as equally leveled against other Protestants with whom he disagreed as they were against Catholics, and actually showed a bit more 'tolerance' to pagans.

In any event, and no matter how you'd like to whitewash Luther or stick your head in the sand when you think about him, Luther commanded that the disobedient and unbelievers be forced to conform at the point of the sword using whatever civil authority was available, by way of corporal punishment, and if necessary, by death.

He outright persecuted Jews, openly advocated the theft of stole Catholic priest's physical wealth and the taking-by-force of Catholic Churches, and much the same for his fellow Protestants.

Luther's misguided actions, by comparison, make this crazy mother's actions look like those of a Spirit-Filled martyr....

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 23:52:39

Given the time frame, this mother would look like a veritable Mother Theresa compared to almost anyone. The timeframe of the Protestant Reformation was not a time of magical prancing and happy elves in the forest.

If specifically acknowledging that some of Luther's actions were negative, as I specifically did, constitutes whitewashing, I would hate to see what tarnishing someone's reputation looks like. But neither was Luther the sole cause of all the problems. There is enough guilt to go around for both sides of the conflict. Had Luther not been whisked away by allies, he would have surely met the fate of Jan Hus at the hands of the Pope. Shall we also forget about Magdeburg so easily? How about the fact that a Pope put a bounty up for the head of the Queen of England?

There's certainly enough that atheists will easily point to this period as an example of "evil religions." Probably the only guys that look anything close to tolerant are the Anabaptists, but even they had Müntzer.

Such a shining light of the Gospel were we. At least I've got no compunctions about admitting that there are sins in the closet. So, let's stop beating the dead horse and discern my point, which was that we shouldn't begrudge other Christian sects for bringing in those whom we fail to but rejoice that Christ is proclaimed among the nations.

dardrops

|2009-02-17 00:12:40

Well said, emperorbma.

That's just one of the reasons we can't put any human in a position where they must be infallible. No matter who they are, all humans fail the perfection test. There is plenty of blame to go around when it comes to church history - catholic or protestant. Nevertheless, they have much to teach us. What do we think? That if it had been us in their position we would have done it better? Not.

BTW, I have a special place in my heart for the Anabaptists. And the Moravians. And John Wesley. But I'm not under the delusion that the Anabaptists, the Moravians, or John Wesley were perfect. Nor do I agree with everything they believed or taught. But I've learned an awful lot from them.

Entity

|2009-02-17 08:13:52

Quote:

That's just one of the reasons we can't put any human in a position where they must be infallible. No matter who they are, all humans fail the perfection test.

You are confusing infallibility (see link) and impeccability. No one claims that popes don't sin.

BTW, if you believe the Scriptures are inspired, you believe in something greater than infallibility. You believe that when this person wrote as the teacher on faith and morals he was right. We believe that when the Pope declares he is teaching on faith and morals in his role as chief shepherd, he just isn't wrong.

dardrops

|2009-02-17 09:10:50

I know you believe this as you are Catholic. And as I'm sure you know, I am not. Therefore, our view of the Pope and many other doctrinal issues are going to be widely different. I'm not even going to enter into the "what's inspired and what is not." I don't think I'll convince you and vice versa. :) It's an old disagreement. And I'm sure you already know what my side of the argument would be.

I enjoy debate when it is respectful and well thought out. Some issues are just too touchy. I don't think we are going to bridge the gap between Catholics and Protestants.

This all started because questions were being asked about our fellowship - is Xenos Christian Fellowship a cult or not? As far as most evangelicals are concerned, we most definitely are not. We have close relationships with people like D. A. Carson, Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll, Mark Mittelberg, Thom Rainer, Gary Breshears, & on and on. We are closely tied to Trinity Evangelical Seminary. We have minor, nonessential differences doctrinally with our fellow Protestants. We may "do" church a little differently to be culturally relevant. But theologically, we are doctrinally sound - for Protestants that is. :)

You asked very early on in these threads, how do we make our money? Like most Protestants, we have voluntary giving in our church - non-mandatory. We make a point at every meeting that if people are visitors and not yet a part of our fellowship, we don't want their money, we just want them to hear the Gospel with no strings attached. Frankly, nobody is obligated, not even those who feel they are a part of our fellowship. Free will, completely voluntary. Our finances are made available to the public. Nothing to hide. Which is more than you can say about a lot of churches.

Throwing out the word "cult" is inflammatory. This is what this mother did. Everyone hears the word "cult" and freaks out. It's the worst kind of mud-slinging. It's tantamount to calling someone a racist or a homophobe. It is an emotionally-charged word. Unfortunately, we have had to make a defense, and we hope it has been a rational defense.

The fact of the matter is, what we at Xenos care about is the salvation of the lost. If we had to choose only one passage to explain our mission, it would this:

Matthew 28:18-20 (NASB)
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

We do not compel people to do, say, or believe anything. We persuade.

Entity

|2009-02-17 10:57:45

I guess my definition of cult is wider than most as I don't restrict it to groups that commit ritual suicide or practice polygamy. Part of this has to do with my family belonging to a cultish group growing up and seeing how they operated.

I still do see some cult-like aspects to your group:

* Reaching out to people when they are most vulnerable. Teenagers and college students are particularly vulnerable as they are at the point in their lives where they are making a separation between them and their parents.

* Conversion of other Christians. Also called poaching or sheep-stealing. The converts often believe that this church has saved them from non-Biblical Christianity.

* Indoctrinated disdain for some parents' beliefs causing family discord. How can a Catholic parent accept their child joining a church that teaches that Catholics have "Odd, superstitious, sick and even horrifying traditions" or says that Catholic priests use incantations comparable to magical spells? I've also noticed other groups such as Eastern Orthodox and Reformed receive similar treatment on your website.

Yes, cult is an inflammatory word and is being used and discussed because of the article on your church. However, if this woman or a Catholic has ever read your website, they are going to feel attacked as well by your church's inflammatory statements.

I enjoy good dialogues on doctrine. However, when your website says that Catholics are superstitious, power-hungry, non-Biblical persecutors of Christians and Jews, that's a rough point to begin dialogue on.

Out of curiosity, who is Keith McCallum, the author of this page and what role does he have in your church? Do you agree with what is written on that page?

wezlo

|2009-02-17 11:06:52

So Entity, don't toss out "cult" then - do what folks are doing below (including yourself - though I'd have people read books rather than web-sites), educate. Don't shove people into a corner because you're offended dude, it's not helpful.

The whole "Catholic Mass is a magical incantation" thing is wildly common among a wide swatch of Protestants (dispensationalists in particular, a stream in which these folks have self-identified). It's bogus, it doesn't fit the sociological definition of "magic" - but it's common. I know you've had some terrible experiences with anti-Catholic Protestants - but don't lash out, please. These folks seem like they're willing to read, think, and re-evaluate stuff that's on their site. Let's give them a chance.

On the other hand "Mr. Devil" (and I say that with affection, that poor mother is off-her-rocker labeling you that) - given Entity's reaction to some of the things posted on your site, can you see how this might unnecessarily inflame Roman Catholics?

wezlo

|2009-02-17 11:18:46

Actually, Entity, you should journal on the Transubstantiation post on Neozine - it needs a running commentary that I'm unqualified to provide - but it's way off.

What's weird is that posts like the one you linked to seem to completely forget that the Eastern Church even Exists - if they did, they'd have to admit that the language of transubstantiation might be unique to the Western Church, and a late arrival - but the idea pre-dates the critique by centuries. Now, we could have a lively debate as to whether or not the Western Church's language used to describe the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist took things way too far - and that would be fun - but the majority of Christians in the world accept that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ (defined with variations). It's an OLD idea.

dardrops - re:

|2009-02-17 12:03:04

Okay, I can't resist this one.

Quote:

* Reaching out to people when they are most vulnerable.

How is that worse than the Catholic Church which ensures compliance by baptizing the most vulnerable of all - infants - and telling them they now belong to the only true church?
Or do we purposely wait until they are middle-aged and their hearts are hardened towards God, when they've incurred more damage in their life? At least most college and high school students are capable of making their own decisions. Jesus said he came to heal the sick and the sinners - not the righteous who don't think they need a physician. It is often, if not mostly, when people are struggling that they finally see their need for God. We persuade, we do not compel or coerce.

Quote:

* Conversion of other Christians...

So when a Protestant wants to convert to Catholicism, does the Catholic Church turn them away? When a couple wants to get married and one of them is Catholic and one Protestant, does the Catholic church prevent the Protestant from converting because that would be sheep-stealing? We don't demand that a Catholic (or Lutheran, or Baptist) renounce his/her church before we marry a couple. As long as they are both believers, so be it. We don't tell a Catholic who is coming to our fellowship that they have to stop going to mass either. They can do as they choose.

Quote:

Indoctrinated disdain for some parents' beliefs causing family discord...

How can a Protestant parent accept their child joining a church that believes theirs is the only true church and the only one that can dispense grace? Geez. It works both ways. And this is where Catholics and Protestants can agree on something. It is about love, unconditional acceptance. When a child does or says something that is in opposition to their parents, does the parent have the right to now reject that child? Wouldn't the loving thing to do is keep the lies of communication open so that in the future you could persuade them differently? Don't Catholic parents also believe in grace? If a parent in our fellowship rejected a child because that child was rebelling or not conforming to their standards, we would definitely be addressing that parent's unloving actions. "Love covers a multitude of sins." Is this not what Christ does for us? "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." This woman has made a public spectacle of herself and her son. She did the rejecting, not her son.

And I wasn't talking about you using the word "cult." I was talking about the mother throwing that word around without ever even talking to us or visiting our fellowship. She knew it would attract people's attention, whether it was true or not. It was rank mud-slinging.

Keith McCallum is my husband. He is senior pastor of Xenos Christian Fellowship in Northeastern Ohio. We have a board of elders because we hold to a plurality of leadership vs one man/woman who has total control. Each home church has 2 or more leaders. All leadership is accountable to God and to one another. We have frequent leadership meetings discussing everything from finances and theology to what book of the Bible we are going to teach next. I, also, am a leader and teacher here.

And yes, I agree with what is in the article. The thing is? Many Protestants feel this way, and, of course, we feel we have good reason. Church history speaks loudly. And before you jump on that, we all have our own mistakes we have to bear and admit to - Protestant or Catholic. This is one of the most embarrassing things that comes up when conversing with atheists and agnostics, don't you agree? The "Church" has a lot to answer for.

Entity

|2009-02-17 14:19:16

Quote:

How is that worse than the Catholic Church which ensures compliance by baptizing the most vulnerable of all - infants - and telling them they now belong to the only true church?

The parents make the decision for the child. In many ways, you probably did the same for your child(ren). I doubt you sent your young child to a number of different denominations and had them choose. We believe infant baptism (see link) imparts grace and has been taught from the beginning by the Church Fathers.

Quote:

Or do we purposely wait until they are middle-aged and their hearts are hardened towards God

The conversion of non-Christians doesn't bother me.

Quote:

So when a Protestant wants to convert to Catholicism, does the Catholic Church turn them away?

It is rare that Catholics actually seek out Protestants to convert them to Catholicism. However, the reverse is not true. Protestant missionary teams are sent down to Central and South America to convert Catholics. They are sent to Russia to convert Eastern Orthodox.

I respect the faith of my Protestant brothers and sisters. I don't denigrate it in order to convert them to Catholicism. When they are wrong about what the Catholic Church teaches, I let them know. We often discuss theological differences, but I'm not trying to convert them.

Quote:

How can a Protestant parent accept their child joining a church that believes theirs is the only true church and the only one that can dispense grace?

I think you should read this article regarding salvation outside the Catholic Church to understand what Catholics really believe. BTW, in what ways does your church dispense grace? (Asking, not rhetorical)

And the huge difference I see is that you won't go to a Catholic church's website and see pages bashing Protestants and their practices. You won't see Catholic articles about how evil Protestant churches are. You won't hear talks about wicked Protestant doctrinal inventions (and there are Protestant doctrinal inventions). If you have fellowship with Catholics - as a previous post said - it seems that you should dialog with them, not have 'rank mud-slinging' on your website.

Quote:

Keith McCallum is my husband. He is senior pastor of Xenos Christian Fellowship

That was my guess.

Quote:

Many Protestants feel this way, and, of course, we feel we have good reason. Church history speaks loudly.

The problem is that the history presented is errant. And the theology is errant. For example, while the word Transubstantiation is more modern, the Church Fathers held to it. (See this link) For example in 110 AD Ignatius of Antioch writes:

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes"

and in 151 AD, Justin Martyr writes:

"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus"

Now, I can go through most of the article and show how the history is wrong or the theology is not what Catholics actually believe. Do you really want me to do that? Would my post remain?

Quote:

This is one of the most embarrassing things that comes up when conversing with atheists and agnostics, don't you agree?

Well, the two that I usually get thrown at me, the Crusades and the Inquisition, are excellent opportunities to show how wrong the history most people think they know is. Has the Church done some wrong? Yes, but not nearly as much as what many believe.

emperorbma

|2009-02-17 14:29:28

Quote:

The problem is that the history presented is errant. And the theology is errant. For example, while the word Transubstantiation is more modern, the Church Fathers held to it.

To expand this, not all of the Reformation even denied Real Presence, either. The denial of Real Presence is mainly traced to a particular Reformer, Huldrich Zwingli, and those churches influenced by him.

Even Luther himself maintained the doctrine of Real Presence quite strongly, but understood it as a Sacramental Union rather than a transsubstantiation. Like the Eastern Orthodox, many of the more liturgical Protestants only reject the Roman Catholic theory of how Real Presence comes to pass rather than the actuality of it.

dardrops

|2009-02-17 15:42:12

I want to preface my reply on this by saying that my responses were a little more sharp last time because I feel your posts have, at times, been caustic and defamatory. I apologize for being edgy and will attempt to be more kind. I do not want this to spoil our conversation. Please forgive my harshness.

Quote:

We believe infant baptism imparts grace and has been taught from the beginning by the Church Fathers.

My response there wasn't intended to address infant baptism. We have discussed this previously, and I'm pretty sure I know where you stand and vice versa.
I was trying to address your critique of reaching out to the youth. I remind you that no minor child comes to our meetings or gets baptized without their parent's permission. In addition, it is not we adults who go out and evangelize the kids. It's kids reaching out to their friends. And, yes, they do witness to them. And, yes, they do bring them around. But they come with their parent's permission or they don't come.

College students are adults and are at the age of consent. Evangelicals aren't the only ones "proselytizing" college students, believe me. You've got every form of philosophy and world view trying to capture them. Hopefully, parents don't throw them out of the house and refuse to relate with them when they are struggling with these issues. And, frankly, this is where the church, both Catholic and Protestant, has failed them. Church is no longer relevant to them for a variety of reasons, and they are drawn to other things. We see our efforts at witnessing to them and drawing them to God and the Gospel as a biblical mandate. They are adults, no longer children.

As far as sheep-stealing goes...my point was not "who does it more." You were the one accusing us of sheep-stealing. My point was, you guys do it, too. I don't deny that if a Catholic and I are talking about spiritual issues, I am definitely talking about salvation by grace and grace alone. But I don't coerce. I persuade.

Quote:

BTW, in what ways does your church dispense grace?

The church doesn't dispense grace. Jesus offers grace freely to anyone who sees their need for forgiveness, repents, and asks Christ to apply his death on the cross to them. We need no mediator between God and man except Jesus. Many Protestants believe that both baptism and communion are symbolic only. I'm sure you are familiar with this viewpoint.
Ephesians 2:8-9 (NASB)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Galatians 2:16 (NASB)
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Quote:

The problem is that the history presented is errant. And the theology is errant.

I'm sure that some history and theology written is errant. However, not all of it is. We can't say, "Well, it's not as bad as you say it is. We only did a few bad things." Man, when we're wrong, we're wrong, and we need to repent. Take out half of what you consider errant history and there's still tons we have to apologize for. Repentance is a healing thing - for both Catholics and Protestants.

I will read the links you posted here, but probably not today. I will get to it ASAP.

Quote:

That was my guess.

Responding to the fact that Keith is my husband. Look way back at the beginning of these comments. I let everyone know that.

Quote:

My husband & I are the "devil" and the "devil wife" written about in the "Ties That Bind?" article.

You even quoted my quote way up there in the beginning. LOL
And just FYI, I was a leader and teacher in Xenos before I met my husband. We've been leading together for almost 25 years. However, he got the gift of writing. I, sadly, lack this gift and settle for being a voracious reader and occasionally commenting on other people's blogs.:)

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-17 17:18:10

dardrops wrote:

Quote:

BTW, in what ways does your church dispense grace?

Do you mind talking about this a little? Because I think it's pretty clear that the Church (universal) is Biblically the very Body of Christ. So, saying that the Church doesn't dispense grace really troubles me... I mean, we can disagree on the mechanism and sacramentality and all, but the basics seem Biblically and theologically beyond question to me. Jesus is present in the world today to the extent that the Lord's Supper is His body and His blood, plus the extent to which the Church is His Body. It scares me to imagine a world where Jesus is not seen at all... That sounds like Hell to me. Seriously. Now, I do well understand that the finer details and degree of all this are subject to intense theological debate. It is not really my purpose to get into that debate at present. I'll just concede that there is plenty of room for Christians of good conscience to disagree on the details.

I really fear for the faith of people who regard baptism and the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic. For it is only a small step to then say that the Church (universal) is purely symbolic. And that the Bible (which the same Church decided the contents of) is purely symbolic. And that really, after all, God is purely symbolic. Seriously, I am not trying to pick a fight here, I just really do think that it is only a relatively small intellectual step to go from one to the next.

wezlo - re: re:

|2009-02-17 21:26:00

And wezlo the odd baptist agrees with metallurge..

dardrops

|2009-02-17 12:27:16

Entity: please, please, please go comment on that article that has you so upset. Please do so. Keith welcomes any and all comments there and does his best to respond to them, too. He would enjoy hearing your side of things. I will tell him to expect you. It would make it easier if your screen name there was also Entity, but that's up to you. He'll probably figure it out. :)

dardrops

|2009-02-18 07:41:27

Entity, it is great that you are commenting on the article on our neozine. Thank you for following through on that. Keith is enjoying discussing this with you.

4Him - re:

|2009-02-17 17:17:53

Entity wrote:

I still do see some cult-like aspects to your group:

* Reaching out to people when they are most vulnerable. Teenagers and college students are particularly vulnerable as they are at the point in their lives where they are making a separation between them and their parents.

That's right it is a vulnerable time in their lives - I can vouche for that myself. I went to college wide-eyed and quite naive, not to mention the baggage of the rocky relationship I had with my mother and my step-father while in high school - and believe me it was not because I was rebellious. I was the picture of the faithful and dutiful daughter - I just wanted out - away from the hostile environment. As I entered college, I was looking for love and it wasn't from Jesus.

I am sure you can guess what happened. The college men of this world gobbled up a tasty little treat like me. I was so lost and miserable and sought out the church of my youth.

Not sure if you have checked into many of the traditional campus churches - but it was not a welcoming place for someone who had strayed so far. Also, Sunday mornings were a hard sell to a young college student.

I praise God continually that I was invited to a meeting in Xenos Christian Fellowship in C-bus, Ohio. I rebuilt an amazing relationship not only with Christ, but also with peers - women. I actually learned how to have a girl friend and not to be seeking attention from boys.

My vulnerability had little to do with separating from my family and more to do with naivety and foolish behavior.

Entity wrote:

* Conversion of other Christians. Also called poaching or sheep-stealing. The converts often believe that this church has saved them from non-Biblical Christianity.

I was not saved out of non-biblical Christianity - but saved out of a life of dispair and bitterness. I was truly lost and went down a slope, much like King David spoke of. My feet had slipped - unlike David I fell.

Entity wrote:

* Indoctrinated disdain for some parents' beliefs causing family discord.

Discord in my family? You bet. But that discord was there long before I ever went to college or chose to attend meetings at XCF.

Frankly, had it not been for the wise counsel of those in leadership at XCF and for close companions - I would have never attempted to reconcile with my family.

True, my faith appears very different from hers. I no longer attend LCMS. I have not baptized my sons - all four of them. I do share the gospel with them and share my faith with them and I pray and hope that they too will chose to be baptized. What a celebration that will be!

I am sure that it hurts her deeply, that I have chose another path - but truly of all of my brothers - it is only I who have a rich Christian live of sacrifice and community. Not one of my bros attend church or raise their kids to follow JC.
So, in my mind, my mother should be rejoicing that I have not forsaken God and worship him daily with my life.

Thought I'd give a personal testamony. I think narrative can tell more than logic debates.

goodmorningmidnight

|2009-02-17 14:14:39

Okay, somehow this comment wound up way above where it is necessary to be, so I'm just going to copy it here:

dardrops wrote:
Wouldn't the loving thing to do is keep the lies of communication open so that in the future you could persuade them differently?

Okay, I hope that quote code works....Anyway, dardrops, I know you meant "lines," not "lies." Just a gentle typographical correction in case anyone misunderstands what you meant.

dardrops

|2009-02-17 14:19:22

LOL...I definitely meant lines of communication.

holmegm - re: re:

|2009-02-17 09:24:27

PinocchiosFurniture wrote:

In any event, and no matter how you'd like to whitewash Luther or stick your head in the sand when you think about him, Luther commanded that the disobedient and unbelievers be forced to conform at the point of the sword using whatever civil authority was available, by way of corporal punishment, and if necessary, by death.

As did pretty much everybody else, including the RCC.

That's not a defense, just a recognition that context matters.

laika - re:

|2009-02-17 00:35:28

emperorbma wrote:

I wouldn't say "loosely based" either, but then I'm also a Protestant.

but i don't think of you as a Protestant, empy, since your beliefs seem to be so orthodox. as i've said before, Lutheranism as described by you sounds downright appealing.

when i think of protestants in America, i think of all the home brew Bible-as-we-individually-understand-it religions that flourish here like nowhere else.

emperorbma

|2009-02-17 01:15:47

Yeah, I appreciate that sentiment. Some of my fellow church goers also eschew Protestant for similar reasons and because we technically did not ever consider ourselves separate from the catholic [universal] Church... only the Roman Catholic interpretation of it.

wezlo - re:

|2009-02-17 15:25:30

emperorbma wrote:

Quote:

Until the sin is gone.

Spin cycle?

Oh dood.

CoffeeZombie - re:

|2009-02-17 17:05:07

Entity wrote:

When you and your wife converted, you were not re-baptized, correct?

Correct. Because both of us had been baptized (in our case, in the former Southern Baptist church) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we were not re-baptized in the Orthodox Church, but were rather received by the Sacrament of Chrismation.

As a side note (for those who may be unfamiliar with Orthodox worship), in the Orthodox Church, Chrismation is the anointing of the newly-illumined with holy chrism (oil) on the forehead, eyes, ears, mouth, hands (both sides), breast, and feet (both sides), and is considered the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. It is traditionally done directly after Baptism and is immediately followed by the newly-illumined's first Communion.

Also, while in the case of converts from Protestantism, the Chrismation is performed as described above, converts from Catholicism are, IIRC, only anointed on the forehead. I'm not sure why.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-17 17:05:42

hm...I guess I forgot to hit "Reply" and "Quote"...

Entity - re: re:

|2009-02-17 17:46:08

CoffeeZombie wrote:

Also, while in the case of converts from Protestantism, the Chrismation is performed as described above, converts from Catholicism are, IIRC, only anointed on the forehead. I'm not sure why.

If an Orthodox person is received into the Catholic Church, all that is required is a profession of faith as we view Orthodox Chrismation (our Confirmation) as valid.

I would suspect there is something similar should a Catholic become Orthodox.

emperorbma

|2009-02-17 20:18:33

Interesting. I wasn't aware that Confirmation/Chrismation was considered compatible between you guys.

The practice among Lutherans varies, with the ELCA being a lot more liberal, but in the LCMS we don't really consider confirmation from another denomination to be automatically communicable as far as I'm aware. ... and it is more of a rite for us, which makes the more conservative stance regarding it an outlier I suppose, although I guess it ties into the Sacrament of the Altar so that probably explains the caution.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-17 21:54:03

I don't think that's quite it. I mean, we obviously require the former Catholic to be Chrismated; the Chrismation is just a little different, but it is still required.

laika - re: re:

|2009-02-17 21:21:56

metallurge wrote:

I really fear for the faith of people who regard baptism and the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic. For it is only a small step to then say that the Church (universal) is purely symbolic. And that the Bible (which the same Church decided the contents of) is purely symbolic. And that really, after all, God is purely symbolic. Seriously, I am not trying to pick a fight here, I just really do think that it is only a relatively small intellectual step to go from one to the next.

nicely put, nicely put. you'd make a powerful missionary of authentic Christianity, bro.

the problem, of course, is that for the American Protestant, the Bible is the only thing on your list that isn't symbolic, so the bulk of the steps that you fear have already been taken.

(i guess i should disclose that i'm uncomfortable with transubstantiation.)

Entity - re: re: re:

|2009-02-17 21:30:02

laika wrote:

(i guess i should disclose that i'm uncomfortable with transubstantiation.)

What view of the Eucharist do you take, seeing as there appears to be a wide range of opinions among Episcopalians?

laika

|2009-02-17 21:35:03

Entity wrote:

What view of the Eucharist do you take, seeing as there appears to be a wide range of opinions among Episcopalians?

that it is integral to worship and that Jesus is present in some real way.

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-18 00:54:34

Entity wrote:

What view of the Eucharist do you take, seeing as there appears to be a wide range of opinions among Episcopalians?

laika wrote:

that it is integral to worship and that Jesus is present in some real way.

Metallurge believes that this is sufficient.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:01:51

Amen. Jesus is there.

I like Robert Webber's take on Protestant Communion. We've replaced the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the doctrine of the real absence of God anywhere...

dardrops

|2009-02-18 10:09:23

Wow, that's harsh.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:14:40

He said it with a smile, Robert Webber was a much kinder man than I'll ever be. His point was that this attitude has contributed to the loss of a genuinely Trinitarian worship among Protestants.

goodmorningmidnight

|2009-02-18 10:16:30

Christ is present in spirit only or physically as well? I have always been troubled by the idea that this truly and not figuratively becomes Christ's flesh & blood (because yes, it does sound cannibalistic--pretty sure you've gotten this before, but that's why I'm asking you guys to make sense of it).

You probably already know that as a Protestant, whenever I have taken communion, it's understood that the bread and wine/juice/whatever drink is available represents Christ and doesn't literally turn into His body in any way.

To illustrate the figurative Speech of Christ in a similar fashion, we see two other examples in the Gospels:

In John 10:7, 9, Christ refers to Himself as the gate for the sheep. Clearly, He is not physically a cast-iron or what-have-you kind of gate, nor are we literally sheep.
Likewise, He neither is literally a vine, and we literally are not branches, as quoted in John 15:1, 5.

How similar is this to what you follow in communion?

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:24:45

Quote:

Interestingly enough, the early Church's language for Communion was so explicit that the Romans actually thought the early Christians practiced ritual cannibalism. Because the Church was secretive out of necessity, it was an easy rumor to spread.
As to the question of physical/spiritual. I'm not sure that's a question a lot of liturgical Christians can answer. It just *is* the body and blood of Christ - which seems to be what Paul himself contends in 1 Corinthians.

metallurge - I am way out of time this morning

|2009-02-18 10:34:39

But I wanted to give you something to think about until I have time to respond more fully.

The beauty of this issue, the beauty of your questions, is that it is one of those questions which is explicitly and clearly addressed in Scripture. Including the struggling-with-a-hard-teaching part, and including Jesus' direct response to all these issues.

When Jesus later said "this is my body, this is my blood", He was speaking as the very Word of God. We need to be very cautious around such a pronouncement.

That said, it is also true that this is an exceedingly great Mystery, which no human truly understands.

Read John chapter 6, starting after Jesus walks on water. Jesus is talking about the Lord's Supper. It was just as controversial an idea back then as it is today. Which pleases me in a strange way.

Alexander Schmemann's For The Life of the World is another must-read.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:46:32

I'm preaching on 1 Cor 11:23-31 this week AMOF (I'm working on my thoughts in another window). The presence of the ritual-purity world-view and caution around images is staggering. I mean, these folks who were taking "unworthily" were dying.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 13:00:06

... and this is why Missouri Synod Lutherans are rather careful about whom we give the Sacrament to. (i.e. close communion)

Entity

|2009-02-18 13:07:55

Yep. It got embarrassing for them when they kept having to call the coroner for ELCA visitors.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 13:34:23

lol.

holmegm - re: I am way out of time this morning

|2009-02-18 12:32:51

metallurge wrote:

When Jesus later said "this is my body, this is my blood", He was speaking as the very Word of God. We need to be very cautious around such a pronouncement.

But, was He not speaking as the very Word of God when He said that He was a door? Or a vine?

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 13:51:14

Well, "no one comes to the Father except through Him" and the "good tree bears no bad fruit." The major difference between the door and vine analogies is that there is a physical Sacrament associated with it.

The Word of God is being connected to a "visible means" which means that mere symbolism doesn't really befit the description. This is what distinguishes a Sacrament from a rite in Lutheran theology. A Sacrament has "command of Christ, promise of grace and the association of a visible means." Only two of the Church practices actually qualify here: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Confession and Absolution were also considered a Sacrament among early Lutherans, but this use was dropped once it was clear it lacked a visible means... so it is now considered part of preaching the Word)

In the case of Luther, the Lord's Supper was seen to involve a non-localized Real Presence associated with the Divine Nature of Christ and His Word of Promise. The Body and Blood are communicated to us through Christ's unique position as the Logos of God.

jsmalley - re: re:

|2009-02-17 22:05:20

metallurge wrote:

Do you mind talking about this a little? Because I think it's pretty clear that the Church (universal) is Biblically the very Body of Christ.

well i think, what dar was saying i think was that the church isn't the mediator between God and man, but Jesus Christ and his death. Jesus Christ is the only way to a relationship with God through his death. Dar was saying that the church doesn't have the authority to forgive sins but God.

i think that's what she was trying to say. The Body of Christ is an active witness of God's love and grace! I think that's what you thought she meant.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 00:45:09

Quote:

well i think, what dar was saying i think was that the church isn't the mediator between God and man...

Jesus Christ is the only way to a relationship with God through his death. Dar was saying that the church doesn't have the authority to forgive sins but God.

Oh indeed, Jesus Christ is the only mediator before God the Father, and nobody will deny this. Especially not those who believe that the Church has authority to forgive sins.

Did Jesus not also say this? "... tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:17-18) This isn't only a supposition, but Christ's own declaration. Remember that the Church is the Bride of Christ. (Ephesians 5:25) Likewise, Christ is also the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18, Ephesians 5:23) So, what does Scripture say of a Bride and her Husband and how it pertains to Christ?

Ephesians 5:31-32 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

The meaning of this is indeed profound, as Paul says. Not only is marriage a holy union before God of men, but it is a reflection of Christ's relationship with His Church. The Church actually derives her authority directly from Jesus Christ. So, Jesus is still the only mediator for man even if we reckon that the Church can forgive sins. The Church is in a sanctimonious and indivisible union with Him through the Holy Spirit and the Church never forgives sins apart from Jesus Christ, but only in the name and by the power which is provided from Jesus Christ Himself. Likewise, when a minister of the Church speaks the Word of Christ with the full faithfulness of the Holy Spirit, then what he says carries is also the full authority as if Jesus actually descended and said it to us Himself. Not because of the power of the pastor, and certainly not if the pastor is working outside the Holy Spirit and against the faith. Rather, it is only the power of Jesus Christ Himself and we know that no man speaking by the Holy Spirit will speak against Christ. Similarly, the written Word of God is a manifestation of the authority of the Living Word of God, which is Jesus Christ, and that Scripture is inspired and understood only by the work of the Holy Spirit.

The testimony of Scripture itself makes the true authority of the Church clear. While the Church is, indeed, a witness of Christ in the world, she is the very instrument of God's grace at work in the world and is inseparable from Christ's own work since she is the very Bride of Christ Himself. Just as we cannot assail the authority of Scripture, the authority of the Church is also rooted in Christ's own authority. The visible manifestation of the Church, then, is actually a literal outbreak of God's Kingdom into this world by the gathering around God's Word and the Sacraments. It is every bit God's Kingdom because Jesus Christ dwells within the faith of His children by the Holy Spirit's power. The invisible Church is the Church in its complete perfection before Christ and the gathering of all who rest in faith before the Lord.

There is a vital importance to the Church as a ministry of God which is not simply boiled down as symbolism. The authority of Christ actually manifests itself into the very fiber of what the Church is. The Scripture testifies this truth and the Holy Spirit sustains it and reveals it through the Word. All of these elements feed into a cohesive unity before God. The Scripture as the normative testimony of God's Word, the Church as the living manifestation of the Body of Christ, the faith as the saving work of Christ in the believers' heart. All are facets of a larger unity in Christ Himself (i.e. Christ, the Word of God) and none can be truly denied without weakening the others.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 10:11:59

The Body of Christ is not symbolic in our view.
Communion & Baptism are.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 12:50:01

Yup. Largely, I was confirming how we can arrive at it. I also would extend this "Word at work in the world" view to the Sacraments, (i.e. Communion and Baptism) however.

I think the Sacraments are one of the means of grace just as the preaching of the Bible as God's Word.

metallurge - re: re: re:

|2009-02-18 01:08:19

jsmalley wrote:

I'm still not getting it. The Church (universal) is literally the very Body of Christ, composed of many limbs ("members" doesn't have the right meaning anymore in modern English) which are connected together, with Jesus as the Head, who is also obviously connected.

If this be so (and this is what the Bible tells us) then the Church (universal) is no mere institution of man, no mere gathering of like-minded individuals, no club to which we can become card-carrying "members". Nor can it be divided from Christ and remain the Church. It is not either the Church or God. It is the Church and God. Without the presence of God, there is no Church, no Body of Christ.

And with the presence of God, there is the authority of God. When the Word speaks through His Body... Shazam! Count on it.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 08:56:37

Gee, I sure am long winded about saying that aren't I? But this truth is what all true Christians strive for.

(N.B. Deliberate recycled internet meme again, although my parody is more reflective of the original material than the myriad of remixes and lampoons that most uses of the Zelda CD-i stuff have done. :P )

wezlo

|2009-02-18 09:51:46

Quote:

Gee, I sure am long winded about saying that aren't I?

We've been telling you that for YEARS...

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-18 10:22:53

At least he doesn't channel Berkana... ;-)

Well, most of the time.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:25:36

Yah, but Berkana at least had some killer recipes...

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-18 10:41:27

This is true. Actually, I think I still make my toasted subs based on a recipe he posted once...

I wonder what that guy's up to now.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 10:14:09

Quote:

then the Church (universal) is no mere institution of man,

The Body of Christ is no mere institution. I agree. The Body of Christ is not an institution at all.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 12:57:34

It may not be an institution in the sense of being like a government or a business, but it was indeed instituted by Christ. I think the word drift might be making the word institution seem unsavory.

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-18 01:21:18

laika wrote:

where does that come from historically? is it just a product of the American preoccupation with the individual experience, or do the roots go back further?

It really goes back to the idea of a person, which believe it or not is a combination of Greek philosophical ideas fused with early Christian thought. It was something radically new. Before this fusion, people saw themselves only as part of a system, as playing their role in the world stage as it were. Which ties in to the household-being-baptized thing I talked about earlier. The older idea was kinda fatalistic, frankly. This is how many ancients saw themselves, how they saw religion generally, and how they saw the nature of gods. Which is part of why Christianity really popped when it sprang onto the scene. It offered a new way of seeing oneself in relation to the rest of the world, and in relation to God. God wasn't just interested in a covenant relationship with His chosen people aggregately, He was interested in covenant relationship with me.

But somewhere along the way, it got taken too far. And that despite the clear Biblical teaching that the life of faith is properly understood only in community (in communion actually). If you ask me, it came from schism. As the Church was divided, Communion was divided. Soon, there were many divisions. Ultimately, it devolved back down to individualism, to a sort of atheistic unChristian personhood, without the bit about community/communion, without the living relationship with God, without the Incarnation. Of course, this notion is false. But it's the starting point for people today. Many Christians today in fact see personhood in this more modern atheistic way.

It all leads right back to a sort of fatalism the ancients would understand all too well. Death becomes normal again, instead of a tragedy against authentic personhood.

If you want to read more about this, better expressed, pick up a copy of Zizioulas' Being as Communion. It'll blow your mind.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:09:35

And among baptists this idea came to fruition in a political extension of the Priesthood of all Believers called "Soul Liberty" or "Soul Freedom." It meant that no group had a right to tell any individual how to read the Bible or to interpret the Bible for them. This worked fine in a world where community still mattered - so even though no one had a "right" to tell you how to read the Bible you still deferred to people who were wiser than you. The problem is that it's flaws come out hideously in a radically individualist world (that was inconceivable to both early Baptists AND the NT Authors).

What you end up with is "Sole Liberty." Where the Church has no cause to say much of anything on any topic - even when people are stepping WAY out of Christian beliefs.

What's interesting to me is that a good many Churches that think the are telling people how to read the Bible for themselves really aren't - they're telling them how to read the Bible on their own, within a set of boundaries reinforced week after week after week in worship and in community conversations. Functionally, this is probably worse than reading the Bible with a Bishop because then you at least are told that you're reading inside a tradition so you can ask questions and be in conversation.

LeonYahoo - re:

|2009-02-18 10:28:14

There’s so much to say, but first I will introduce myself, and at the same time maybe handle some things discussed so far. I was brought up in a Lutheran church, didn’t really care about God or church or anything spiritual. That is until I was 23. At 23 I came to the decision that I wanted Christ’s forgiveness for my sin (past present and future). Which is a one time decision that guarantees salvation. That was at an unknown denominational church, I really don’t remember what they were. The church was called Grace Brethren or something. For about 2 years I checked out different churches. I went to a St.Bernads mass, and several dif non-denominational churches. I felt awkward and as an outsider. Also during this time I was very much withdrawn from my family. I ran into a member of Xenos on campus and he warmly invited me to a bible study they had at their house. I went, and it was great people talked to me and I felt there was a general interest in my life. I started going regularly (which was my personal commitment, not like I signed some membership form or had to do any kind of initiation.) I moved into a ministry house, which was discussed earlier, and started a one on one discipleship with an older believer. I was baptized. And you know what I was baptized as a child too in the Lutheran church. My parents were happy for me though, and attended my baptizm. I was starting to get the picture of what God wants believers to do, reach the lost. And I started trying to be significant. I wanted to partake in building Gods unseen eternal kingdom, I have been. I teach and lead in the HS group, and am currently in a one on one discipleship with a younger believer. That brings me to now. Now we have been called a cult and are getting all sorts of attention. We are going to battle and every word on our website is looked at very carefully. Praise God. We are to be prepared to defend our faith, and this is good for both sides. But I am not interested in attacks or mud-slinging. So this is my basis for commenting here. Comments coming soon. Thanks for hosting this discussion and for posting on Keiths articles( I havnt looked at those yet, but am eager to)

laika - re: re:

|2009-02-18 11:56:11

LeonYahoo wrote:

Comments coming soon. Thanks for hosting this discussion and for posting on Keiths articles( I havnt looked at those yet, but am eager to)

welcome, LeonYahoo! we thank you for dropping in and look forward to your comments. this has turned in to a very interesting and edifying conversation thanks to the participation of you Xenos folks. the more, the merrier!

wezlo - re: re:

|2009-02-18 10:00:16

goodmorningmidnight wrote:

As Jim will tell you, he's not a Protestant, he's an Anabaptist. He's got ritual on the brain because of his dissertation - which has been a great help to me in my preaching, btw (thanks Jim).

Anabaptists practice three rituals instituted by Jesus: Baptism, Communion, and Foot-washing.

That said, while there are three specifically mandated rituals in the NT (foot washing gets left out, it's a shame) - one you spend some time in the Tanakh and exploring the ritual world-view that exists in it's pages you begin to see that the same ritual world-view exists in the pages of the NT. Holiness, being clean/washed, in Christ, and more are all steeped in a ritual world-view. The mentality doesn't change in the NT, only the means by which the rituals are understood (Jesus is the fulfillment). Even something that is condemned to do to Gentiles by Paul (circumcision) isn't lost in the language of the NT - because the ritual reality is still desirable.

The problem with Protestants (and I say this as a Baptist pastor) is that we've gone beyond the intent of the NT and shifted both our focus AND our world-view away from ritual. In so doing we've lost sight of the actual text we're supposed to be using to guide our faith.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 10:26:04

When was foot-washing ever commanded as a ritual?
Are you referencing John 13:14 (NASB)
14 "If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet.

Man, I wish serving like Christ was as easy as merely washing each other's feet every once in awhile. That would sure be convenient.

It was a visual object lesson to the disciples. The command was way more sacrifical than merely a ritual foot-washing. Look further down in this passage.

John 13:34-35 (NASB)
34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

There's the command. Do you think the world will know we love one another because we literally wash each other's feet. I don't think so.

As I've said before, rituals often take the place of actual sacrificial serving & love. This is a case in point.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:42:15

The verb οφειλω connotes obligation - it's the enactment of the love commanded in the next verse.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to call it an instituted ritual, you'd be in good company to do so. I don't, however, understand how you make the jump to making foot washing a case of ritual *replacing* the act of actual service and love. As all rituals, it's a training of the will to the service of our Lord - and man is it needed, try getting Baptists to do a foot washing; sheesh.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 10:58:21

It requires more training of the will to sacrificially love people than it does to do a ritual foot-washing. As a matter of fact, the HS has to totally transform your mind & heart supernaturally because we don't naturally want to do this. Hence, it is sacrificial.

Rituals can easily allow us to compartmentalize God so we can put our time in on Sunday morning (or whenever) then get on with the rest of our lives as though God plays no part outside the church building.

Many of you appear to be leaders or ministers in your respective churches. You may understand the place rituals occupy, that they don't replace real love, but your regular Joe/Jane church attender doesn't get it. They mostly see the rituals, perform them as commanded, and leave the building to go on to their "more important" secular life. In their view, ministry, devotion, and sacrifice are reserved for the "professional" clergy. This does not reflect the kind of body life and sacrificial service spoken of particularly in Eph. 4.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 11:11:23

Quote:

No one said otherwise. That's why it's training. It's part of what's involved in beating our spoiled bodies/minds/hearts into submission - but no one ever said that this is all you have to do. A ritual mind-set isn't on/off, which is how I'm perceiving you are viewing it. It's "always on" - especially given the scope of the Kingdom of Jesus' presence as depicted in the NT (ie: "everywhere").

Quote:

Rituals can easily allow us to compartmentalize God so we can put our time in on Sunday morning (or whenever) then get on with the rest of our lives as though God plays no part outside the church building.

Actually, rituals are to do the OPPOSITE.

I pastor a church that has no understanding of ritual (well, more now after 6 years). Because of this not only is a huge swath of the Bible closed off to them as meaningless - and because they have no concept of the nearness of God that is present in the NT's ritual world-view many folks happily go and do their own thing all week and then come back on Sunday and think that God doesn't care. Heck, many folks want to do whatever they like even during "religious time" and think that God doesn't care.

Quote:

Many of you appear to be leaders or ministers in your respective churches. You may understand the place rituals occupy, that they don't replace real love, but your regular Joe/Jane church attender doesn't get it. They mostly see the rituals, perform them as commanded, and leave the building to go on to their "more important" secular life. In their view, ministry, devotion, and sacrifice are reserved for the "professional" clergy. This does not reflect the kind of body life and sacrificial service spoken of particularly in Eph. 4.

You're making assumptions about how ritual is handled in the congregations of the people you're speaking to. That's a dangerous thing thing to do. In my case, I've had people leave the Church because in bringing up this world-view too much was demanded of them as disciples of Jesus. They wanted to go back to the nice easy way of being a Christian which was to not be one when they were away from the Church. In six years folks have been forced to come to grips that they were always "in the camp" and therefor always in the presence of Christ. What I'm saying is that my experience with lay persons is the direct opposite of yours.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 15:35:12

Quote:

A ritual mind-set isn't on/off, which is how I'm perceiving you are viewing it. It's "always on" - especially given the scope of the Kingdom of Jesus' presence as depicted in the NT (ie: "everywhere").

Well, you hope it's always on. But it's not for the average person, in my experience.

Quote:

Actually, rituals are to do the OPPOSITE.

Maybe, but they don't.

Quote:

Because of this not only is a huge swath of the Bible closed off to them as meaningless

Meaningless because there's no ritual to go with it??? I don't get this. Ritual obscures. Rituals are a shadow. Christ came and showed us what the real thing is. Christianity is relationship, not religion. Ritual teaches people to relate to God in a distant manner. God is "way out there." I have to relate to God differently than any other person. That was true before the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. If you entered the holy of holies without being the high priest on the Day of Atonement, dude, you were ashes. But His death to pay for sin removed the "veil," the barrier. Now it's like this:
Hebrews 4:16 (NASB)
16 Therefore let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

and this

Romans 8:15 (NASB)
15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"

How can the Bible be closed off? Pick it up, open it up, and start reading. The grace and love of God for His errant children jumps out at you clearly. For the most part, bar a comparatively few obscure or difficult passages, the Bible clearly says what it means and is easily understood.

I feel the problem is that most people are not encouraged to study the Bible on their own. No one takes the time to teach them basic hermeneutical principles so they easily understand what they read. Actually, for the most part (unless you hold to an allegorical hermeneutic) you can understand the Bible with NO training. Most rely on the professional clergy to tell them what the Bible says, believe whatever he/she says, and then forget what they hear. How many have been led astray in this manner?

Quote:

What I'm saying is that my experience with lay persons is the direct opposite of yours.

Wow, I can't tell you how different your experience is than mine. I mean, dude, radically different experiences. The majority of folk raised in a church have little understanding of why they do what they do and have only a cursory understanding of Scripture. Most may be able to quote a few bible verses, but "handling accurately the Word of God" Nope, I don't see that in the regular lay people very often. And it shows in the way they lead their life when they're not inside the four walls of their church building.

Quote:

I've had people leave the Church because in bringing up this world-view too much was demanded of them as disciples of Jesus

Wow, that's really, really sad. So, they can spend 40+ hours week (usually more) in their secular pursuits plus their additional leisure time, but sacrificial and loving servanthood in service to others is too demanding? Isn't there something wrong with that picture? No wonder we have to hire professional clergy to do the job. The poor leader has to do everything. What about Eph 4:11,12 where it is the apostles, prophets, pastors, & teachers who equip the saints for the work of service? It's not God's will that they do it all. Only their part.

You know what I believe is the saddest part of all? That they actually miss out on the joy of the Lord. Loving others they way Christ loves us is what actually gives you joy and significance. Without doing that, Christianity is empty.

I have to stop posting for the day, I think. I have a beginning Koine Greek class to go to, taught by a really cool retired gentleman in our fellowship. He has a terminal disease that causes him great pain everyday, so much so it takes him 3 hours to get out of bed in the morning. He does this willingly and joyfully without payment. He says it gives him great joy and that is all the payment he needs. In this class are 2 high school students, maybe about 8 college students, and then that many more adults. We're doing this so we can better utilize the interlinear Greek NT which will help us better understand our NT. Are we asking too much of them? :)

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 16:05:16

I think there's a language barrier maybe.

For dardrops, I think "ritual" is seen as something like "empty and vain repetition." For wezlo, he's meaning "things we do because they bring us closer to God and His Word."

It's all about the perception of meaning here. I don't think any of us are advocating making God a distant Father whom we must appease with meaningless actions. "A little sprinkle of blood to appease the gods" like the pagans? By no means. Rather, the ritual here is the acts we are doing because we feel God's presence and work in our lives.

In our church, the liturgy is not merely a formality but we are participating actively in the gathering around Word and Sacrament even if it is, ultimately, God's work only that brings us to be there.

Done badly, it can cause people to think God is a distant and meaningless concept that we sing songs about. Done properly, even a long liturgy can be a deep and meaningful experience that highlights and underscores one's relationship with our loving Heavenly Father and our merciful Savior rather than pushes Him away into a corner. In fact, the liturgy shouldn't even be a way to say "we worship God on Sunday, but do whatever we want the rest of the week." A Christian is a Christian 24/7 and the liturgy should be a tool to serve and strengthen that relationship even more.

I think that is what wezlo is trying to communicate here.

Entity

|2009-02-18 16:16:35

Dardrops and others from Xenos, one person who really understands many of the language barriers is Alex Jones, who came from being a Pentecostal preacher to a Catholic deacon. Changing his definition of words was a struggle for him. I recommend his book No Price Too High, as it will help you understand how different groups of Christians perceive the same words differently.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 16:46:19

Yes, there is definitely a language barrier "ritual" seems to be a pejorative to dardrops. I'm having difficulty communicating the idea of a ritual world-view that continues in the language of the NT. These aren't "vain repetitions" they're simply the way they conceived of life.

Dardrops, the OT isn't closed off to them because we don't have a ritual. It's closed off to them because they have no understanding of ritual, so entire books like Leviticus are beyond them and they miss why language such at the type found in it's pages would ever be applied to Jesus or be relevant for Christians ever.

The purpose of ritual is the opposite of that which you assign it. It's designed to draw people into a relationship, not obscure it. Heck the language of Hebrews is swimming in a ritualistic understanding of the universe that is hugely Jewish - it doesn't erase that world-view, but it does hold out that Jesus' priesthood is vastly superior to that of the priests of old. Even the invitation into the Holy Places that exists in Hebrews 10, is steeped in the language of ritual purity.

I'm trying to come up with a better word that won't create a negative reaction - the problem is that I'm not there is one. So do this, define ritual the way you would if someone asked you to define word. Then folks here will define it the way they are using it - when people who have a different definition of ritual use the term, try to insert their meaning. It's not a perfect solution - but at least we might become better aware that we're not talking about the same thing.

Jim	\|2009-02-19 17:17:20

Quote:

Christianity is relationship, not religion.

Nope. Sorry. Christianity is most definitely a religion. It's one of the big three Abrahamic faiths.

I grew up in the fundagelical world that started that phrase. It's a great way of creating a barrier between yourself and the other 99.9% of the body of Christ. But, there's not a widely used definition of religion out there that Christianity doesn't conform to.

laika

|2009-02-19 17:39:50

Jim wrote:

I grew up in the fundagelical world that started that phrase. It's a great way of creating a barrier between yourself and the other 99.9% of the body of Christ.

so, i guess you won't be voting for my "It's not a religion. It's an adventure!" submission to the website logo contest?

Jim	\|2009-02-19 20:45:06

Well, Theophiles better dang well not turn into a religion, so I'll accept that. ;-)

metallurge

|2009-02-19 20:49:06

I guess you didn't get the memo about the pending merger with Xenos? :-)

4Him - re:

|2009-02-20 09:10:43

metallurge wrote:

I guess you didn't get the memo about the pending merger with Xenos? :-)

Hey, how did you guess I have pig tails? I think I felt a little tug.

Aren't we already united in the same body of Christ?

dardrops - re: re:

|2009-02-18 10:06:42

I don't mind discussing this at all, metallurge.

Scripture speaking of baptism & communion, imho & other's ho, are metaphoric in nature. This does NOT minimize their importance. They are the only 2 rituals prescribed in the NT, which highly contasts with the intricate nature of rituals in the OT. The reason is because the rituals in the OT were a "shadow of things to come..."

Hebrews 10:1 (NASB) 1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
If taking communion has to be done frequently to gain grace, does this not qualify as "offer continually year by year" & equals trying to keep the Law for salvation?

I cannot express to you how highly we view both baptism & communion. Although baptism is a one-time occurrence, we set aside an entire day/year to baptize the new believers. It is a joyous celebration where friends & families are invited. It is the goal of all our efforts to see people who have been rescued from the destruction of this world make a public expression of their faith to all. But...it is an expression, a demonstration of something that already occurred.

Communion is celebrated at the home church level which is more intimate & community-oriented. This is the way it was done in the NT church. See Acts 2.

To think we have a low view of these rituals is a complete misunderstanding. Are we only considered to have a high view if it is administered by the clergy & consider these things as dispensers of grace?

The Scriptures are clear that no ritual "dispenses" grace. If you had to be baptized or take communion to be saved or remain saved that would be "works" or "human effort" & constitutes the work of the Law. Anytime a person must perform an act or work to gain salvation, it equals works.
Romans 3:20 (NASB) 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Galatians 2:16 (NASB) 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Now what can I say about our view of the Body of Christ...Wow. Our view is so high & our involvement in the Body so frequent that we are accused of being a "cult." Isn't that ironic?

We don't think "going to church" is at all equivalent to body life. We don't feel that participating in baptism & communion & sitting in a church building once or twice a week equals body life. Body life IS community life.
Acts 2:42 (NASB) 42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Acts 2:46 (NASB) 46 Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart,
In addition we believe, as Clive Calvert of World Relief said, that "the church is the one entity that exists for the benefit of its nonmembers."
Our whole goal & motivation is to see the salvation of the lost & their growth in the Lord.
We hold fast to Romans 12.

Romans 12:4-5 (NASB) 4 For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function,5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.
We believe that every member of the Body of Christ is equally important & do not hold to a clergy/laity model.
Ephesians 4:11-13 (NASB) 11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13 (NASB) 12 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. (Please continue through the end of this passage.)

1 Timothy 2:5 (NASB) 5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

1 Peter 2:9 (NASB) 9 But you are a chosen race, A royal priesthood, A holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

We also don't hold to "sacred space." We don't "go to church" we "are the church."

Okay, I'm sure you Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, & Reformed here are probably reverberating right now, but if you are Evangelical and Dispensational, I’m sure I have agreement. I’m sure I’ve pushed a button on the clergy/laity & sacred space issues. Sorry. But I’m trying to let you know where we are coming from.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:13:36

Quote:

Scripture speaking of baptism & communion, imho & other's ho, are metaphoric in nature.

Right, this is where metallurge is disagreeing. Metaphor, as it's currently understood, doesn't have the weight necessary to carry the ideas expressed in the ritual world of the NT.

For example, when we take communion, I refer to the element as "images" - since that's how the NT seems to present them. An "image" has a different quality than a "metaphor." Like, we're not "metaphorically" the image of God.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 10:31:48

I'll give ya that. Let's call them visual object lessons that help drive the idea home.

Unlike the Body of Christ which is not merely an image but a real, organic, living thing.

metallurge

|2009-02-18 10:44:02

I would use the word "icon". For more information on specifically how I use that word, see Pelikan's The Vindication of Tradition, which has an excellent discussion.

Of course, if you think "icon" is a loaded word, I would settle for "image", as in "image of God" being something humans are made in.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 11:13:40

Oh, that's what I mean - but if I SAID that, people would freak out. They'd freak out even though we have icons in the stained glass in our sanctuary, but they'd still freak out.

Entity

|2009-02-18 11:24:49

Sort of like the word 'Tradition'. Each church seems to have its own Tradition, beliefs that they hold to be co-equal with the Bible that have some support in the Bible but cannot be explicitly defined from the Bible. If you were to tell people that 'Once saved, always saved', 'Sola Scriptura', 'TULIP', or the Book of Concord were Tradition, they would probably freak out too.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-18 11:35:41

I'm pretty sure Lutherans are okay with saying the Book of Concord is Tradition. They haven't quite gone off the deep end with Tradition vs. Scripture that other Protestants have.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 13:41:02

Quote:

I'm pretty sure Lutherans are okay with saying the Book of Concord is Tradition

I guess I need to explain the situation, probably.

It's a little more complicated than simply saying that it is a tradition. In the sense that it defines the "Lutheran tradition" of Christian faith, yes this is accurate. (Of course, we also believe that the BoC reflects universal Christian truth)

However, there is a caution about the types of tradition that are permissible and which are seen as undermining Scriptural truth. In the Book of Concord, most of the criticisms of "tradition" are rooted in the critique of "adding new things to Scripture" which are binding on consciences.

The [Unaltered] Augsburg Confession, in Article XXVI, states "traditions have obscured the commandments of God, because traditions were placed far above the commandments of God. Christianity was thought to consist wholly in the observance of certain holy-days, rites, fasts, and vestures." It later continues, "Nevertheless, very many traditions are kept on our part, which conduce to good order in the Church, as the Order of Lessons in the Mass [i.e. the liturgy] and the chief holy-days. But, at the same time, men are warned that such observances do not justify before God, and that in such things it should not be made sin if they be omitted without offense."

While the BoC might technically be considered as a tradition of the Lutheran Church, the use of tradition has a more specific use for Lutheran discussion as a part of the critiques. The Book of Concord, in that context, is primarily seen as being an accurate portrayal of Scriptural truth. Hence, the authority of the Book of Concord is because it reflects what the Bible teaches just as the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed do. It is only because of that assessment, that we can actually rely upon it as a norm of Biblical interpretation.

[The ELCA and LCMS actually are different sides in this. The ELCA understands it to be "insofar as" it reflects Scripture. The LCMS believes the Book of Concord "because" it reflects Scripture.]

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-18 14:09:59

Well, okay, I guess even with Lutherans 'tradition' carries more baggage than I thought.

I'm referring to 'tradition' as 'things passed down,' which is, I believe, the technical meaning of the term; the teachings of the Book of Concord are certainly tradition in that sense, as is the belief that the Book of Concord properly interprets the Bible.

Of course, in that sense, the Scriptures, themselves, are tradition. ;-)

dardrops

|2009-02-18 14:38:01

When I mean tradition, I mean the traditions of men, not of God.
Mark 7:9 (NASB)
9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 15:33:05

Quote:

I'm referring to 'tradition' as 'things passed down,' which is, I believe, the technical meaning of the term; the teachings of the Book of Concord are certainly tradition in that sense, as is the belief that the Book of Concord properly interprets the Bible.

Yup, and I agreed with that use. We don't really see an issue with calling ourselves traditional per se, either. It is just that we tend to have the same association that dardrops described in her post. "traditions of men" versus the "handed down" truth of God's Word that serve as a backdrop to our understanding of what tradition means.

... and in your sense, yes, Scripture is a kind of tradition. :P

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-18 16:45:36

True, although it would seem obvious to me that the "traditions of God" are not exclusively found in the Bible, because the very Canon of Scripture we have was not, itself, written in those Scriptures (i.e., nowhere do we have St. Paul, for example, saying, "And these book shall be called the New Testament: Matthew, Mark...", but was a result of much prayer/debate during the first few centuries of the Christian Era.

And, in fact, the Canon of Scripture used by most Protestants is not the same set of books used in the early centuries of the Church.

Finally, in response to emperorbma, I wouldn't say the Bible is a "kind" of tradition, I would say it is part of the Church's Tradition.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 14:40:45

Quote:

The [Unaltered] Augsburg Confession, in Article XXVI, states "traditions have obscured the commandments of God, because traditions were placed far above the commandments of God. Christianity was thought to consist wholly in the observance of certain holy-days, rites, fasts, and vestures." It later continues, "Nevertheless, very many traditions are kept on our part, which conduce to good order in the Church, as the Order of Lessons in the Mass [i.e. the liturgy] and the chief holy-days. But, at the same time, men are warned that such observances do not justify before God, and that in such things it should not be made sin if they be omitted without offense."

Wow, I like that emporerbma! Thanks for posting that. I'm going to read more of the Augsberg Confession.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 15:29:42

Cool. I'll give you a quick link to save you a search, then.

Just an FYI... Philip Melanchthon (the original author of the AC and a friend of Luther) actually wrote a second "variata" revision of the Confessio Augustana (another name for the Augsburg Confession) in an attempt to include the Reformed Churches under Zwingli. (who denied Real Presence) The "Augsburg Confession, variata" reflected their more symbolic understanding of the Sacraments.

After the Marburg Colloquy, when it became clear that the Lutheran view couldn't be reconciled with Zwingli's, Melanchthon and Luther themselves chose to remain advocates of the original "Unaltered Augsburg Confession," and the Lutheran church followed in their decision. As a result, the "Defense of the Augsburg Confession" (also at the Book of Concord site) is based strictly off the UAC.

Even then, at that early date was quite a bit of disagreement about what the Protestant Church would teach, it seems.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 11:40:01

WHAT DO YOU MEAN????!!!!

hehehheehehheeheheheh

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:44:29

Yah, see I don't think that goes far enough either - though it's closer. "Image" is a real thing in the Bible. An object lesson you can take or leave - you can't take or leave an image of something.

CoffeeZombie - re:

|2009-02-18 11:04:12

dardrops wrote:

I'll give ya that. Let's call them visual object lessons that help drive the idea home.

Not exactly.

The Baptists among whom I grew up had part of it right: immersion presents the idea of being buried and risen, like Christ was. However, their problem was that they stopped there; it only presents the idea.

St. Paul, however, in Romans 6 doesn't seem to be discussing Baptism as merely a presentation of these things: "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

As I understand the teaching of the Church, when a person is baptized, he is, in fact, buried with Christ, and risen with him. To quote Fr. Thomas Hopko,

Quote:

In the Christian Church the practice of baptism takes on a new and particular significance. It no longer remains merely a sign of moral change and spiritual rebirth. It becomes very specifically the act of a person's death and resurrection in and with Jesus. Christian baptism is man's participation in the event of Easter. It is a "new birth by water and the Holy Spirit" into the Kingdom of God (Jn 3:5).

I would speculate that it is precisely because of this that, in the first centuries of the Church, baptisms often took place on Holy Saturday, the day before Easter. Even today, Holy Saturday is a popular day to be baptized.

As far as Communion goes, when we receive Communion, we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. It is not a "mere symbol"; it is a symbol/image, but that does not mean it is not also real. We actually receive Christ into our bodies.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 10:46:49

It is very fun to be the only evangelical dispensationalists on your site, & I really mean that. Thank you so much for allowing us to participate in your discussions.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 10:48:02

No worries, back in the star of our predecessor we even had an flat earther for a while...

Entity

|2009-02-18 11:02:48

Yep, when I joined I think I was the only non-Protestant on the (old) site. One member joined the Catholic Church, a few joined the Orthodox Church, and we added a couple from each. We've even had an atheist or two, a Muslim, and a heretic (at least according to the response to his first post).

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-18 11:05:30

We had a Mormon lady on there for a while, too, but I think we scared her off...

wezlo

|2009-02-18 11:14:23

I remember her!

Jim	\|2009-02-18 16:42:25

Wait, was I the heretic?

I haven't been called a heretic in sooo long.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 16:51:54

No, you were the heretic on that missional theology board that my friend Todd had a while back. As I recall, it took one post for someone to level that cannon on you - you made a comment about atonement someone didn't like, or some other thing that you usually get in trouble over...

Jim	\|2009-02-18 16:57:53

Oh yeah! I remember that. Good times.

Entity

|2009-02-18 17:04:36

Well, it was Jim I was referring to. I hadn't realized that it was a different forum.

Jim	\|2009-02-19 17:18:58

That's just because you thought I was a heretic from the outset ;-)

Entity

|2009-02-20 09:13:09

Nah, we call you 'separated brethren' now...

That way we can extend the net to include Mormons, Moonies, Scientologists, and Anabaptists. :-P

dardrops

|2009-02-18 11:04:02

Wow, okay. I'm not a flat-earther, young-earther, bible-thumper, fire & brim-stoner, moral majority right-winger, doomsdayer, ignorant country preacher either.

Can I still play with you guys?

LOL

wezlo

|2009-02-18 11:14:38

sure.

Jim	\|2009-02-18 16:58:25

But if you know any of the others, be sure to head them our way ;-)

metallurge

|2009-02-20 15:08:50

Absolutely!

4Him	\|2009-02-18 11:12:49

Any Wiccans? One of my favorite books is It takes a Wiccan. jk

wezlo

|2009-02-18 11:15:30

Hmm, I'm not recalling any neo-pagans on either site, no. We did have an angry teenager once though, does that count?

4Him	\|2009-02-18 11:16:32

Aren't all neo-pagans teenagers - regardless of age?

wezlo

|2009-02-18 11:18:31

Nah, I've met some pretty mature ones. Granted I think any pagan not doing blood sacrifice is just kidding themselves - but they weren't adolescents...

Entity

|2009-02-18 11:27:13

I believe we may have some ex-Wiccans or ex-neo-pagans who have been on our site or may still be.

wezlo

|2009-02-18 11:40:29

Yah, but they don't show up on the census...

SteveGus

|2009-02-20 10:36:43

I used to be a Wiccan. I still don't like to see them abused. They have invented a religion that comports with their most deeply held beliefs; and from the light of pure reason it is as plausible as any other.

I left Wicca partly because it wasn't dark enough for me. :) I am serious about this. In the process of moving from "witchcraft" to "Wicca", it became the state religion of political correctness. This implied a generally optimistic belief in human perfectibility through social action that I could not take seriously.

Christianity posits a ruined world, the kingdom of Satan, full of flawed people who will never become better absent supernatural intervention. It speaks of sin that can only be atoned by the blood of God Himself. I am if nothing else a pessimist, and this world view came to speak more eloquently to me than Wicca did.

laika

|2009-02-20 11:39:31

SteveGus wrote:

I left Wicca partly because it wasn't dark enough for me. :) I am serious about this...

Christianity posits a ruined world, the kingdom of Satan, full of flawed people who will never become better absent supernatural intervention. It speaks of sin that can only be atoned by the blood of God Himself. I am if nothing else a pessimist, and this world view came to speak more eloquently to me than Wicca did.

a strangely beautiful and moving testimony, SteveGus.

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-20 11:46:38

laika wrote:

a strangely beautiful and moving testimony, SteveGus.

Agreed.

The internal conflict between my pessimism and the knowledge that it was killing me is one of the significant factors which led me to the Lord.

4Him	\|2009-02-20 14:41:52

My apologies for the crass humor.

A agree, your testimony is mighty awesome.

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-20 15:05:35

4Him wrote:

My apologies for the crass humor.

A agree, your testimony is mighty awesome.

Don't feel too bad, 4Him. One of the things which makes up Theophiles' "secret sauce" is our diversity. Plus the fact that news stories tend to be a great source for debate, sometimes leading in entirely unexpected but amazing directions. We all have learned a whole lot from each other. It has been a real blessing to me, personally.

And we have all made comments like that one, only to have somebody else come out of the woodwork and tell us "how the cow ate the cabbage" as they say here in Texas. Keeps ya humble, and keeps ya teachable. Both are very good things...

SteveGus

|2009-02-21 01:05:20

'SOK. I've heard worse.

Seriously, one of the consequences of my past is that I don't "speak Christian" or play at reverence very well. I have a seriously inappropriate sense of humor that surfaces at inappropriate times. This was another reason why I wasn't a very good Wiccan either.

And let's face it, your remark was funny, and at least halfway true: which is as close as we get most of the time.

laika

|2009-02-21 01:27:06

SteveGus wrote:

I have a seriously inappropriate sense of humor that surfaces at inappropriate times.

and i'd like to see more of that, if you don't mind me saying so.

wezlo

|2009-02-21 08:36:41

Quote:

Seriously, one of the consequences of my past is that I don't "speak Christian" or play at reverence very well.

Yes, that's actually a ritual I refuse to take part in.

laika - Tradition vs Free-style?

|2009-02-18 12:14:37

question of tradition: would an Apostle or a member of the Didache-era(sp?) church recognize what was going on in the average roll your own, free-style American Protestant church gathering of today? would an early church person feel like he/she had "been to church" after visiting such a gathering?

does it matter greatly?

dardrops

|2009-02-18 14:34:09

The first century church would recognize the homey atmosphere of a home group-type fellowship. :) They met on Solomon's Portico to hear the Apostle's teach, but other than that they met mostly in homes. (Well, there was the School of Tyrannus but don't think it looked like the church buildings we see today.)See Acts and all the epistles.

What they wouldn't recognize is a cathedral-style building with a narthex, high ceilings, stained glass, pews, flying buttresses, steeples, robes & vestments. The Jews would recognize this temple-like version, but only because it resembled the OT Jewish way of doing things. Well, maybe not the flying buttresses and steeples.

The big structures that most people recognize as church buildings today didn't begin until the time of Constantine when Christianity became popular and legal.

Persecuted people tended not to make themselves conspicuous. That tended to get them martyred. Plus, it takes a lot of money to build and maintain a building, let alone one with such elaborate decorations. That took state-sponsorship during Constantine's time. And for quite some time after that.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-18 14:50:41

Actually, the early Christians would probably feel more comfortable in a Catholic or Orthodox liturgy than in the more modern 'worship service.'

I learned this, actually, when reading about early Christian music. You see, the modern Liturgy (or Mass, if you're Catholic) has a long, long history, that goes back to Judaism. The first part of the Liturgy (the Liturgy of the Catechumen in Orthodoxy) was pretty much lifted straight out of synagogue worship; over time, the readings from the Law and Prophets were replaced with readings from the Gospels and the Epistles, and, of course, other changes were made (for example, the particular hymns sung).

As I recall, early Christians would actually (wherever allowed) attend this Liturgy at the Synogogue.

The second part of the Liturgy (again, in Orthodoxy, the Liturgy of the Faithful) is when the Eucharist is celebrated, and was what the early Christians practiced (certainly in a more simplified form than today) in their home meetings.

This is, at least, what I've read. I could be wrong on some points.

Also, I seem to recall that there were periods when the persecutions lulled before Constantine in which Christians did build buildings.

laika - re:

|2009-02-18 15:22:34

dardrops wrote:

but questions of buildings aside, if i'm not mistaken, that early church would likely have read a creed collectively, treated the sacrament of communion as central to worship, recognized the authority of the founding apostle and his successors, etc.

now, when i visit my dad's mega-church of the denomination of my upbringing, the things the early church (and current more orthodox churches) practiced are largely missing or diminished. what i see instead is a mirror of current pop culture. their "relevance" is simply a borrowing from the dominant culture, so instead of entering a headspace of solemn worship based on tradition and practice going back to churches founded by the Apostles, i get the atmosphere of a Grateful Dead concert with Pastor Bob riding on to the stage astride a Harley with the calculated and requisite goatee and Hawaiian shirt.

setting aside dicussion of the actual sacramental nature of some of the practices found in more orthodox gatherings, these centuries-old rituals put me in a sacred worship space that is far-removed from a reflection of the individualistic consumer-based "relevant" churches of my youth. that's most of where i'm coming from in my personal attitude toward a discussion of the hostility towards ritual and the fixation on fleeting novelty we see so much in churches today; ritual and tradition would have its own worth for me even if it could be shown to be empty of any sacramental aspect.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 15:37:17

Quote:

read a creed collectively,

Yes. In fact, the Apostles' Creed itself was an outgrowth of the Baptismal formula in Scripture. In effect, the creed also served as a reaffirmation of one's baptismal faith with the parents' confession becoming the child's confession as he or she grew to understand what God's Word teaches.

laika - re:

|2009-02-18 16:50:55

emperorbma wrote:

Quote:

read a creed collectively,

thanks for confirming. my knowledge of history doesn't even exist compared to most of you all, but i remembered (i hope correctly) a letter from Pliny to Trajan as presented by C. H. Dodd in his The Founder of Christianity in which the group recitation of a creed is described while Pliny is sort of spying on the Christians and reporting the goings-on to Trajan.

so from that exchange we get a non-Christian outsider report of part of what went on when early Christians gathered.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 15:46:46

Quote:

recognized the authority of the founding apostle and his successors, etc.

Recognize the authority of the apostle, yes. Recognize equal authority for his successors, I'm thinking not so much. We're talking 1st century church here, I thought.:)

Don't know about the creed either.
Acts 2:42 (NASB)
42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

BTW, I'm not a fan of the consensus-building, commercially-appealing, diluted Gospel megachurches either. I've visited several and I feel like I'm at a shopping mall. On this we can agree.

Entity

|2009-02-18 15:52:23

If you want to find out how the early Church worshiped, I would recommend contacting Alex Jones. (His church's website is http://www.ssolgh.org/.

When he was a Pentecostal minister, he began an early church study group inside his church. They read a number of the early church fathers, found the earliest writings describing the early church worshiped, and began modeling their services after them. They ended up realizing that their services were more and more like the Catholic mass. (Which is very similar to the Orthodox liturgy.) He and 58 members of his church ended up coming to Catholicism. Here is a bit of his testimony.

He travels to churches to give his testimony. If you are up for the challenge, have him talk at your church. However, I understand how it could be threatening for a Protestant congregation, so I certainly would understand an unwillingness to invite him.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 16:34:15

Yes, I'm going to have to agree that study of the early Church will tend to bring one further away from the radical Reformation rhetoric that characterizes many Protestants.

Even studying the Reformers themselves points to a lot stronger focus on ecclesiology than has characterized many modern churches. The early Church Fathers have a lot to say today but few today heed Luther's statement that the Church Fathers are "profitable and necessary," even if they do not in any way replace the Holy Scriptures and some have, by God's grace and wisdom, not survived to this day.

The Church Fathers are clear witnesses to the growth of Biblical orthodoxy and Christian faith and they also chronicle the battles the Church has endured to get to where she is today. (As well as some of the same battles we still face, such as gnosticism)

laika

|2009-02-18 18:48:19

Entity wrote:

...he began an early church study group inside his church. They read a number of the early church fathers, found the earliest writings describing the early church worshiped, and began modeling their services after them.

yup, when exposed to such, at some point you might find yourself asking how it is that you're so far outside the historical model, and whether or not your position is healthy and tenable... and pleasing to God...

laika

|2009-02-18 23:58:39

I wrote:

i mean "you" "yourself" and "your" in a general sense here - that wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. and at the same time that's a personal statement, reflective of my own faith journey.

dardrops

|2009-02-18 20:55:54

Ouch

LeonYahoo - re:

|2009-02-18 23:47:38

Entity wrote:

They read a number of the early church fathers, found the earliest writings describing the early church worshiped, and began modeling their services after them. They ended up realizing that their services were more and more like the Catholic mass.

What early church fathers are you refering to? And what church?

Entity - re: re:

|2009-02-18 22:21:48

LeonYahoo wrote:

What early church fathers are you refering to? And what church?

There is some info on the link (here) above, but you may want to read Alex Jones's book No Price Too High.

BTW, no ouch intended. Any speakers at our parish are thoroughly vetted and while he spoke here a few years ago, I would expect your criteria to be different.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 22:37:41

Quote:

I would expect your criteria to be different.

Um... I bet you meant for a "not" here.

Entity

|2009-02-19 09:03:49

No. Our criteria usually limits us to Catholic speakers approved by the diocese. They have no diocese, nor is their denomination (as I understand it) large enough to probably constrain speakers to it.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 10:48:32

Yeah, I was probably thinking in the back of my mind about the LCMS having similar restrictions on speakers (only those in pulpit/altar fellowship) rather than considering the size of the group we're discussing.

LeonYahoo

|2009-02-19 08:46:55

So, I read that, sorry to say I'm not converted to catholicism. I have one thing to say about that link you gave me, CONTEXT. He sites verses assuming they refer to catholic traditions. Well wait isnt he trying to show that the verses are referring to catholic traditions? I mean for example, he sites 1 cor 11:16. Im sorry but that verse is talking about a very specific cultural tradition of the Jews (about how females wear their hair.) But he uses that as "Oh see, you see, LOOK! hes talking about catholic traditions!" I do need to tell you something. When you are searching for a presuposition, you find it everywhere and you can take things out of context to prove almost anything. Anyway that’s my thought of Alex. How do you handle verses against the traditions of men Mrk 7 and Mt 15, Col 2? I am sure you have a prepared response as do we for many common questions.

metallurge

|2009-02-19 09:39:53

Welcome to Theophiles!

I will not address the content of your post, but I would like to speak for a moment about the context of it. I know that there is a tendency to view what other people say from the context of their own theological position, as you say. But seriously, we here, including Entity, are not so much about advancing agendas. We actually come from a wide variety of denominational backgrounds. We just like to talk about God, and learn from each other. Yes, we each have a perspective. Yes, we are going to be coming from that perspective.

LeonYahoo - re: re:

|2009-02-19 10:42:48

metallurge wrote:

But seriously, we here, including Entity, are not so much about advancing agendas.

My post does not lay outside of the attitudes of others. This is you saying "We can question and ask for an answer, but you cant"

Entity

|2009-02-19 11:04:01

I am not trying to convert you. I am not trying to bash your church. My post was about what happened when a Pentecostal preacher took a look at the early church and led his flock to be closest to the early church.

Your church seems to want to be closest to what early Christianity was like. OK, find out. This guy did that. Invite him in. Find out what he has to say. He isn't going to try to convert you, but he will give you something to think about, something that is a completely different view than what your church apparently believes by what is posted on your website.

Do I have an agenda? I suppose I do. My agenda is that other Christians understand the Catholic Church so when they talk about it, it isn't bashed based on misinformation. But my agenda is not to convert you.

metallurge - re: re: re:

|2009-02-19 11:30:19

LeonYahoo wrote:

My post does not lay outside of the attitudes of others. This is you saying "We can question and ask for an answer, but you cant"

Nope, sorry if it came out that way! I'm saying that you don't need to come around these parts, armed and ready for theological battle. I'm not saying you were, either! I'm just pointing out that it is safe to just talk.

Entity

|2009-02-19 11:31:52

Quote:

you can take things out of context to prove almost anything. Anyway that’s my thought of Alex.

Well, Alex did not want to become Catholic. He fought against it. He lost most of his flock because the changes he made to services based on following the early church made their liturgy too Catholic. I can also point you to many people like Mark Shea, Steve Ray, Scott Hahn, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Paul Thigpen, Fr. Ed Fride (personal friend), Al Kresta, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, Deal Hudson, and Marcus Grodi who were dragged by God kicking and screaming into the Catholic Church, many after studying the Early Church. Many of these were Protestant ministers. They knew their Bible and their faith, held positions of importance in their denomination, and did not want to become Catholic. And I bet the Orthodox could come up with their own list.

These people used those quotes against Tradition. They were used to 'punching holes' in Catholic arguments. Don't think for a moment that Alex Jones wanted to read a defense of Tradition into those verses.

As for a response for those verses, I suggest you read Scripture and Tradition, particularly "Commandments of men". Unfortunately, I'm headed into a meeting soon, so I don't have time to address this properly.

grizzly - re:

|2009-02-19 12:23:07

Entity wrote:

And I bet the Orthodox could come up with their own list.

Yes, we could. Back in the 1980's there was a group of house churches that started out Evangelical, and wanting to emulate the early Church, and eventually converted en masse to Orthodoxy. Fr. Peter E. Gillquist and his 17 parishes (over 2000 members) converted en masse in 1987. Then we have many former Anglican priests, including Rev. Gregory Mathewes-Green and his wife Frederica.

My priest is a convert from the Disciples of Christ, my archbishop is a convert from Baptist, and our Metropolitan is a convert from the Episcopalian Church. All were faithful Christians before they converted, but felt there was something missing from Protestantism, and believe that the Orthodox Church contains the "fullness of Truth".

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 12:52:11

Heh, even one of my professors was a Protestant minister converted to Orthodoxy. He actually runs an Orthodox parish alongside his teaching.

Entity

|2009-02-19 13:03:36

I wonder when Wezlo will be added to that list...

grizzly

|2009-02-19 14:07:16

We are waiting patiently for him. :)

holmegm - re: re:

|2009-02-18 12:26:44

metallurge wrote:

I really fear for the faith of people who regard baptism and the Lord's Supper as purely symbolic.

I'm not entirely sure that I know what "purely symbolic" even means, but whatever it means I doubt that as many Protestants actually hold to it as one would think reading commentary about it.

I believe that we really do partake of Jesus when we eat the bread and drink the wine in faith.

The material that we hold in our hands is symbolic - it's not a chunk of bleeding flesh ripped from the physical body of Jesus, it's a piece of bread. But if "purely" symbolic means something like "no real partaking of Jesus is taking place", then of course I don't believe that. Nor did Luther or Calvin.

Jim	\|2009-02-18 16:39:34

He's meaning that Zwinglian view that both Calvin and Luther fled screaming and most Baptists embrace as Divine truth.

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 16:44:46

Bingo!

holmegm - re:

|2009-02-19 14:10:48

Jim wrote:

He's meaning that Zwinglian view that both Calvin and Luther fled screaming and most Baptists embrace as Divine truth.

Ah, OK.

Jim - re: re:

|2009-02-18 16:37:04

goodmorningmidnight wrote:

Are these the same rituals that you follow, or are there more? I'm just curious, because I only come from a Protestant background.

More properly baptism and the Lord's table are sacraments. All sacraments are rituals, but not all rituals are sacraments.

In my tradition, Anabaptist, we also observe foot washing since, like baptism and communion, Jesus' told us to do it.

However, it's good not to pull the net too tight. It's not like the Holy Spirit copped off to have a smoke for thousand years after the last New Testament writer died. The Holy Spirit has a history and ritual observances such as Easter, Christmas, Lent and Advent are there to help us mark time and become part of the story.

I'm fairly certain that your community has more than just two rituals. You're probably celebrating at least Christmas and Easter, if not Lent and Advent as well. No?

Jim	\|2009-02-18 16:38:09

Wow, I have not idea why this comment wound up here!

emperorbma

|2009-02-18 16:43:40

Quote:

It's not like the Holy Spirit copped off to have a smoke for thousand years after the last New Testament writer died.

This calls for an amen, and I don't usually give those lightly.

dardrops

|2009-02-19 12:22:52

No Lent, no advent.

We celebrate Christmas and Easter but it's not a ritual. We kinda like to remember the Incarnation & the death and resurrection of Christ all year long. :)

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 12:48:26

Of course, we celebrate all year long, but for us the seasons are following in the footsteps of Christ's life.

The day of Christmas always must looks forward to the Cross and to Easter. Even in the hymn, "Silent Night," it recalls that "Nails, Spears shall pierce Him through." On Good Friday, we walk with Christ in His Passion and recall His sufferings for our sake. In Easter, we proclaim again the joy of the Resurrection. The seasons of the Church are basically a way of making Christ alive in our hearts and remembering all that He did for us. They don't replace the fact that we remember all of His life every day, but they serve to make us a part of His life.

Jim	\|2009-02-19 12:59:52

Alright, then you and I are speaking different languages. Parlez-vous ritual theory?

I would define a ritual as an intentional activity, clearly marked by it's uncommon (i.e. non-quotidian) nature, that through participation or observance creates exclusion while fostering community.

How would you define a ritual?

dardrops

|2009-02-19 09:25:18

This has been an interesting series of discussions. I knew shortly after posting for the first time that chances of any agreement on such issues as Church Tradition, the role of ritual, the sacraments, & many others issues of doctrine & theology were slim to none. :)

I would like to raise an issue that is very concerning to those of us at NeoXenos. It goes to the heart of what concerns some of you about our focus on the youth.

Statistics on church attendance & the importance of faith in the God of the Bible have shown a dramatic drop. This drop is across the board, too. Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, you name it, people are leaving in droves. In our humble opinion, the even more concerning trend is that 80% of the youth leave the church by their 20's & never return. (See George Barna & Josh McDowell on this. Although, all pollster on this topic show this dramatic trend.)
Is this not alarming? Although some of you have expressed concern that we focus on the youth, are you not concerned about the lack of kids that are passionate about God? Or are your churches overrun with youth who can't wait to spend time in church.

The question is, what do we do about it? We are not content to see this occurring & feel God has called us to reach out to them. For millions of youth to wander out into the world system to find significance & purpose which only leads to destruction is catastrophic. We must do something about it.

I know some of you disagree, but our interactions with youth show that they know little if anything about the Bible OR about their church of origin, if they even have one. If they did go to church, most don't know much about what their church believes. There is a vague belief on their part that if they don't go to church, something bad may happen to them in the afterlife. However, they are not concerned enough to do anything about it. God has little if anything to do with their life. Their bodies show up at church, but their hearts are from Him.
How many of you are concerned? How many of the youth in your churches are radical & devoted to God? If Catholic, Orthodox, & Protestant kids are attracted to other churches or denominations, aren't you concerned about why that is? If someone shares the Gospel with a kid from your church, & they say they've never heard it before, isn't that terrifying to you? We hear this from kids that show up in our fellowship all the time. Although the majority of kids we reach are unchurched, those that have attended mass & PSR, or catechism class, or Sunday school, & parochial schools their whole lives can't even tell you what they believe let alone why they believe it. Most see no need for church or Christianity & quickly leave as soon as they are not required to go by their parents. Their faith is not their own. And since adult attendance & participation has also dropped dramatically, chances of kids having any church background at all is rapidly diminishing.

We at NeoXenos do not want to see a whole generation of kids lost. If this generation fails to be drawn to God's love & grace & see no relevancy for the church, imagine what the generations after this one will look like.

The amazing thing we see are high school & college age kids who love the Lord, love each other, & can't wait to come to home church. We see them going back to their families & improving their relationships there. They become grateful to their parents for all they have done. They help more around the house. They become better students. They volunteer at inner city after school programs, soup kitchens, & battered women's shelters. They love to learn the Bible. They think Jesus is cool & are always telling their friends about Him. We have high school kids teaching the Bible. We have college kids so committed they start their own Bible studies. They take Greek classes & OT Survey classes, & Basic Christianity Classes. AND NOBODY MAKES THEM DO IT! They choose to.

Are all of our youth this committed? No. Are all of them showing gratitude to their parents & helping out at home more, etc? No. They are at all stages of spiritual development. However, a majority are.

I, personally, think this is amazing. Probably there are some other churches that see this. Probably. But not in our section of the woods.

Entity

|2009-02-19 10:54:23

Perhaps your church is different from many of the Protestant churches I dealt with in college. They often pursued active Christians, particularly Catholics. I've always been committed in my faith but was approached by many Protestants, usually Baptist or non-denominational, telling me that I wasn't Christian because I was Catholic or their denomination. I was even approached at the bus stop by someone who immediately claimed that I wasn't Christian because I didn't attend his individual Church.

Now, while I've always been committed in my faith, I have always been solidly educated in my faith. And when one goes to an ecumenical Bible study and has multiple people claiming that we worship saints, commit idolatry, put man over God, and disobey the Bible, it can be overwhelming, particularly when being bombarded with Bible quote after Bible quote. Now, I happen to be a methodical engineer, so I would go back and research what they said and often found that they had misinformation, incredible bias, and little to no understanding of Early Church Fathers.

And I knew many Catholics who went through the same thing I went through. These weren't uncommitted Christians who were searching for God, but just not the type of Christian these 'evangelists' thought they should be. Some left. Some stayed. Some got so turned off from religion by the constant attacks on their faith by other Christians that they want nothing to do with Christians anymore.

Now, the Catholic mass is not worldly exciting. Half of it is the same every week. Our priests often are poor at preaching. (There are so many things more important that they be good at.) But we get to receive the actual Body and Blood of Christ every week! And too many Catholics don't realize how important and how wonderful that is.

Our masses don't have pop music, videos, plays, dynamic guest speakers, coffee bars, comfortable couches, discussion time, or other forms of entertainment. They aren't social gatherings. They don't lure teens and college students in with anything but the Eucharist.

We have a non-denominational church right up the road. People love the great time they have there, but the theology is wishy-washy. We live right near a college campus and the local Catholic parish is near unrecognizable as a Catholic parish because its theology is off, its liturgy is off, and it is extremely liberal. There isn't another Catholic parish within walking distance, so this non-denominational church sends its vans to pick up Catholics and try to convert them at their church. Many of these were active Catholics all through high school, but given the choice between a boring mass with bad theology and an exciting service with OK, but wishy-washy theology, run by people who tell them all the things 'wrong' with Catholicism, they head elsewhere.

(Because of the parish system and this parish being the official parish for the school, other Catholic parishes have their hands tied.)

So, what I've seen with many churches is not going after uncommitted Christians, but pursuing committed Catholics and trying to convert them with erroneous information.

My questions to you:

* Does your church pursue Christians actively involved in their denomination?

* If not, why are their multiple pages on your website stating what is wrong with other denominations, particularly Catholicism?

dardrops

|2009-02-19 12:19:09

Quote:

* Does your church pursue Christians actively involved in their denomination?

Absolutely not! We want to reach those who have not yet received the grace & forgiveness of Jesus. If, however, someone from another church wants to come to our fellowship, they are welcome. If a person is actively involved in their church, they don't want to come to ours. If all people are doing is switching churches, that does not advance the Kingdom of God. It is those who are lost that we want to get the Gospel to. We prefer not to get "transfer" growth, frankly. Unless...they've never had the grace of God presented to them. That's a tragedy, don't you think? They've gone to church their whole life and don't know about the grace & freedom found in Christ?

Quote:

* If not, why are their multiple pages on your website stating what is wrong with other denominations, particularly Catholicism?

Because we also discuss theology, as you do here. As you know, people are free to comment on anything and enjoy a good discussion. The intent is to engender discussion. You get your chance here to critique (which is very healthy, btw) Protestantism and evangelicalism and whatever else. We do the same thing. I apologize for any offense you have taken, but that's the nature of dialogue. In addition, critique is often how we change what is wrong. We try very hard not to offend someone personally, but I'm sure we step on some toes. You've certainly stepped on mine here. (Re: sheep-stealing, cult, etc.) But that's okay as I love a good repartee. At least I get a chance to air my side here. That's why I encouraged you to give your side on our site. Thank you for taking that opportunity.

Oh, one more thing. We don't use "bells & whistles" or put on a show to lure people in. We don't entertain them. We don't even sing. We don't have a praise & worship team. We do play secular background music, but don't think that's a draw. We don't have a church bus. (Well, I've got a van I haul my sons & all their friends around in, but I don't think that counts.) We don't even have a building. People come and stay because they find Christ, learn the Bible, learn how to study the Bible, find community, relationships, purpose & significance.

At our meetings we do the following: pray first, then have an exegetical Bible teaching where we teach whole Bible books over the course of time(although at our large meetings we do use PowerPoint, gasp), then have extended time for anyone to ask questions or comment, then pray, then hang out and fellowship together. That's it. We depend on the Holy Spirit to draw people to Him.

However, I still didn't get an answer about the declining church attendance & losing our youth to the world. Anybody gonna bite on this?

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 12:43:17

Quote:

However, I still didn't get an answer about the declining church attendance & losing our youth to the world. Anybody gonna bite on this?

On this question, all I could do is present my own denomination's perspective on the matter. The others will need to describe their own position because I won't claim to know anything about others' perspectives on this matter.

My take on it is that it isn't we who actually convert people, but the Holy Spirit. He may use our time, talent and treasures to bring people to Him, but it is ultimately His work alone. The main thing is that we believe the LCMS serves the mission of Christ best by keeping a sound doctrinal witness. We also have our own mission churches, mostly in the inner cities, but we are most focused on presentation of the message in its purity. Our "Ablaze" program is another one of the attempts to reach the uncommitted. We are of the opinion that those whom Christ has called will find His presence in our preaching and be drawn to our Church through His Holy Spirit but we also have outreach and missions to serve to further that mission.

We're also pretty much on the same page that "flock stealing" is a detriment to good Christian practices and avoid that where we can. The main thing is that we don't buy into the ideas of "church growth" movement because we think that if "growth at all costs" is our only concern, it will undermine the integrity of our witness to Christ and His Kingdom.

(In terms of statistics, our denomination grows at about the same rate as the population... which means we're "neither gaining nor losing" in terms of size)

Entity

|2009-02-19 12:38:41

Quote:

The intent is to engender discussion.

On Theophiles, we have a large range of opinions and we have discussion. I still wouldn't expect that anyone would post what is on your site out of respect for others.

On your site - at least on those pages - you did not have discussion. You had agreement. Until Metallurge and I posted on there, there were no dissenting opinions.

That diatribe was not meant to engender discussion. Who wants to go on a site and respond to someone who has shown such obvious hatred for your beliefs? Most Catholic apologists, people with training to respond to ignorance and hatred towards Catholic beliefs, would just shake their heads, roll their eyes, and move on. I only posted there on invite.

An article to engender discussion would have posed questions and made responders' opinions feel welcome. Your husband's responses were better, but don't tell me that any Catholic response to that article was desired.

Entity

|2009-02-19 14:05:14

Also, I don't know if posts aren't always accepted, if links prevent them from being posted, or what is going on, but I've tried to post a response a few times and it has not shown up.

4Him	\|2009-02-19 14:25:48

Hey,
I just read your inquiry. Though I am not the editor of the NeoZine. I do have some admin privileges.

I went looking for your comments and somehow they ended up in our spam filter. They should be showing up soon on the site. Sorry for the delay.

Entity

|2009-02-19 14:35:20

Ah, must have been links to indulgences stores I put in...

If you get a lot of spam, you might want to try a captcha like this.

4Him	\|2009-02-19 19:35:44

I'll pass that suggestion on. Thanks

dardrops

|2009-02-19 15:48:45

Quote:

Until Metallurge and I posted on there, there were no dissenting opinions.

Not for lack of trying. It's a public blog among several million public blog sites. We found yours & then we took you immediately to ours and invited you more than once to comment there. We aren't afraid of dissenting opinions. Comments are responded to. You'll notice on our blog site we have even opened a public discussion on the controversy surrounding the article and specifically asked our very public dissenters to post there. http://issues.neoblogs.org/posts/cult-accusation/

I don't see you presenting our side of the story as you comment here. Why would you? You're an advocate for your position. We are putting forth our view point as you do yours. The Catholic sites you pointed out to us sure didn't provide dissenting opinions. Why are you even saying that?

Quote:

Who wants to go on a site and respond to someone who has shown such obvious hatred for your beliefs?

Quote:

Hatred is a strong word, Entity. It presupposes personal knowledge of someone. It was a critique of a viewpoint we disagree with. Not even remotely uncommon - Catholic or Protestant. My husband has been very cordial with you in his comments because you are a real person. He has shown you respect even though he disagrees with your viewpoint. He doesn't attack your character & isn't remotely hateful. Forgive me if I think you're taking those articles too personally. We've just been through 3 months of very public vilification and it was personal. Now that was hatred. I'm having a hard time seeing Keith's articles about Catholicism as anywhere near that level. We know what hatred for your religious views looks like.

And what are these rules you have? He has to pose questions before a response can be expected? What??? Does not the fact that at the end of every article there is a place to comment not suggest that an opinion is desired & welcomed? Come on. That's not fair. I think you have too many rules.

Quote:

That diatribe was not meant to engender discussion.

Sorry, disagree. See above. My husband absolutely loves to discuss. He wrote them on a public site for public consumption and discussion. Hey, tell your other friends to come and comment! You must understand - this is what he desires. But as you can tell, Keith is educated & widely-read. He's no pushover. He's going to have well thought out responses with some pretty heavy evidence. He's far from ignorant.

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-19 12:42:02

dardrops wrote:

However, I still didn't get an answer about the declining church attendance & losing our youth to the world. Anybody gonna bite on this?

Yes. Patience, grasshopper... :-)

dardrops

|2009-02-19 15:50:00

LOL...willing to wait.

metallurge

|2009-02-19 17:35:37

I have great concern for these issues. I have spent significant time in children's/youth ministries because of how strongly I feel about it. I spend lots of time talking with my non-imaginary friends about it.

But what I have observed is that church attendance is probably not the best measure of discipleship. There are so very very few people who claim Christ, but who actually live the life of a disciple of His.

So, I really have come to see it as a larger problem than being a merely youth problem. Discipleship is the key. People need to really spiritually invest in other people, of all ages.

Now, I am an adult convert to Christianity (at 28), having been agnostic prior. A radical transformation, praise be to God! I was not raised in church. I really get what you are talking about.

grizzly - re:

|2009-02-19 18:10:19

metallurge wrote:

I spend lots of time talking with my non-imaginary friends about it.

As opposed to your imaginary friends here on the internet? ;-)

metallurge - re: re:

|2009-02-19 18:29:44

grizzly wrote:

Quote:

I spend lots of time talking with my non-imaginary friends about it.

As opposed to your imaginary friends here on the internet? ;-)

Precisely. That is what my wife referred to y'all as.

4Him - re: discipleship

|2009-02-19 19:11:07

metallurge wrote:

But what I have observed is that church attendance is probably not the best measure of discipleship. There are so very very few people who claim Christ, but who actually live the life of a disciple of His.

So, I really have come to see it as a larger problem than being a merely youth problem. Discipleship is the key. People need to really spiritually invest in other people, of all ages.

Now this, really perks my interest! I am all about discipleship. This was something that was missing from my youth in LCMS. A discipleship relationship would have really grounded me in the word and in abiding in the walk of faith.

I first began to understand that this was what was missing from my Christian walk when I first began attending Xenos (in Columbus) in 1987. This was a lfe changing experience for me. (I am sure many others can affirm a similar experience.)
I totally agree that not only is discipleship something that is necessary for the youth, but also for adults - no matter the age.

I have adult discipleship relationship with a woman who came to the Lord in her early 50's. I also work with several other women in an adult bible study with several younger women, though I do not consider myself their "discipler," I do invest in their spirtual lives, asking questions and pointing to both the scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit as a means to mature growth. This does not just happen in the context of weekly meetings. It is a relational investment - one that includes sacrifice and perseverence.

It is such a honor to be able to serve in this capacity to "shepherd" those that Christ called to himself. The struggle through is how much of the disciple relationship is done with dependence on the Spirit instead of dependence on one's own effort.

Discipleship is vital for the growth of the church not just in attendance numbers, but in spiritual maturity. How can one truly love without striving towards knowing Christ more fully?

The interconnectedness of the BoC is so magificient. Without use of the individual giftings that the Spirit has given, no church can thrive.

The narrative in Luke of Jesus calling the disciples is telling. He merely asked them to follow Him and they did.

Entity

|2009-02-19 12:59:54

Quote:

However, I still didn't get an answer about the declining church attendance & losing our youth to the world.

Now to this question:

What I have found is that Catholic parishes that are orthodox and faithful retain a larger percentage of young people. The ones that lose most people are the ones that have a "do what you want" approach. People, particularly young people, look to the Church for guidance. If the church is not providing that guidance, they have little reason to stay.

Fellowship among the teens can also be important. If teens feel like they are stranded on the virgin|teatotalling|religious island while all the others are splashing and playing in the Slut Sea, the Alcohol Ocean, or the Secular Stream, they won't stay on shore long. A good youth group, perhaps something like Life Teen, can be vital in keeping kids involved.

An education at a faithful parochial school can also be a great help. Sending kids to public school where religion is denigrated, authority (parental|church|governmental) is questioned, and peers are into all sorts of things is dangerous to one's faith life. Unfortunately, some Christian schools are not much better. However, a Christian school that has sound theology and morality can do wonders in retaining children.

I've been to some Catholic parishes that are horrible at retaining teens. The university parish I mentioned previously is one of them. Other university parishes have Newman Fellowships, Bible studies, and discussion groups and are much more successful at retaining college kids.

I've also belonged to many parishes that are great at retaining teens. Our current one is awesome! We have K-8 school, a very active teen group that is constantly serving the community, strong CCD (Catholic teaching for kids), but most importantly, faithful priests who provide solid moral and theological teaching. It's hard to get numbers, but I would say that we retain significantly more young people.

dardrops

|2009-02-19 15:58:11

Okay. It would be nice to see statistics on this. All the polling out there shows the opposite and not just for Catholicism.

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-19 16:07:41

Personally, I don't trust statistics.

Any time I hear a statistic, I want to see the study. I want to know what the actual data says, what the actual questions were, and what the responses were.

Do 80% (that's the number I recall hearing as a Baptist) of teens actually leave church altogether, never to return? Or is it that 80% of teens leave their churches and go to a different one? Maybe I'm a part of that statistic, because I converted to Orthodoxy.

Those are the sorts of questions we should always ask when presented with a statistic. Sadly, statistics seem to be the most easily-abused way of presenting information. Maybe it's because, being numbers, they sound a lot "harder" than they really are. The fact is, you can make statistics say just about anything you want. And you can often make them up on the spot without anyone questioning you.

As they say, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

laika

|2009-02-19 16:26:52

CoffeeZombie wrote:

Do 80% (that's the number I recall hearing as a Baptist) of teens actually leave church altogether, never to return? Or is it that 80% of teens leave their churches and go to a different one? Maybe I'm a part of that statistic, because I converted to Orthodoxy.

good question. i fled the Baptists for the Anglican Church (please don't call me Episcopalian right now :-) when i was 18, so i, too, might be part of that statistic.

LeonYahoo

|2009-02-19 11:24:19

My experience with catholics I know and invite to our church is that they lack understanding in the Bible. They fall under all or just some of these: All they know are the traditions, They are nominal, they are catholic because their parents are catholic, they dont beleive that they are forgiven of sins by Christ, they think church is about being good, they think that by going to church is the only way that God will love them and by going to church they are "ok", they dont think that you can pray to God for forgiveness of sin, Priests word is the only truth and they dont read the bible for themselves, you have to follow the ten commandments or you go to hell, ministry teaching understanding the Bible is the priests job only. Now to answer your question. We pursue people, we find out if they have come to a personal relationship with Christ . If they have they can fellowship with fellow beleivers where ever they want to. Also along those lines, if someone doesnt know God and comes to a know Christ through our church, same thing, they can fellowship wherever they please, with us or not. Everything is between them and God. The thing is once someone is secure in their faith that Christ forgives them of their sins, they can do whatever they want. The problem I see is that many people think that the traditions of many churches is what they need to do to go to heaven. I would say "Hey if you are faithfull by the Bibles definition and have received salvation through what the Bible lays out, you can do whatever the heck you want, But if you have no faith or salvation you are waisting your time with the traditions you were taught." Thats what is debunked in those articles and I hope you would agree that it is by personal faith and Gods grace that you receive salvation not by only doing the traditions. You may be the only Catholic I have ever met that can articulate much of the stuff that you have, most of the time I get a "Thats just what we do."

Entity

|2009-02-19 12:02:56

To make sure that we are on the same page, I'm going to ask for a couple of definitions and a couple of clarifications. If you wouldn't mind defining these as you understand them, that would be great!

* personal relationship with Christ

* personal faith

* faithfull by the Bibles definition

* received salvation through what the Bible lays out

Thanks!

LeonYahoo

|2009-02-19 13:08:55

"Personal relationship with Christ" It means exactly that, being in the company with Christ which the Bible says happens when you personally have faith that He died for your sins, Rev 3:20, Gal 2:20.

"Personal faith, faithful by bibles definition" is simply trusting that God is who He says He is and will do what He says He will. That applied to salvation means that if you have faith that Christ has died on the cross for your sins then you are forgiven of all sin and going to heaven to be with God for eternity, and there is nothing that can change that, even "polluting the environment."

Ref:(Ephesians 2:8,9; Romans 8:38,39; Ephesians 1:13; 2:4, Acts 2:21)

If someone has not experienced these things, regardless of their background it is our(all Christians) duty, as commanded by Christ, to present the Gospel and handle any questions they have. Do you agree or would you send them back out of fear that their "church" would get mad?

Entity

|2009-02-19 13:23:45

Quote:

"Personal relationship with Christ" It means exactly that

Here is one former Evangelical's take on "personal relationship with Christ". I agree with him in that I get a different answer from everyone I ask. The two Bible verses you listed do not give particulars.

Quote:

if you have faith that Christ has died on the cross for your sins then you are forgiven of all sin and going to heaven to be with God for eternity, and there is nothing that can change that

This looks like "once saved, always saved" and "assurance of salvation". Is this what you are saying here?

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 14:04:31

Even Lutherans have "assurance of salvation," but it isn't such that we cannot fall away from saving faith if we chose to. (Who, knowing who God really is, would be sane in making such a decision is another question entirely)

goodmorningmidnight

|2009-02-19 14:53:58

I can answer your questions, because leonyahoo and I share the same belief on this:

As for the personal relationship with Christ, you can refer to Romans 10:9-13 [as well as 1 Cor. 15 in regards to JC's physical resurrection, primarily 1 Cor. 15:17] for a biblical example of a particular. To elaborate, you must believe (passages not exhaustive):

1) we are all sinners as a result of original sin (Rom. 3:23 as one example)

2) Therefore, we need to be forgiven. There is nothing we can do to earn our way into Heaven/a relationship with the Lord; instead, we are saved by grace through faith, not by following God's law (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16, 3:10-11; Hebrews 7:11; James 2:10, 21 [side note: Abe's works resulted from and were not a cause of his faith]. Galatians as well as Hebrews 7-11 are good about explaining God's law vs. faith).

3) Believing that Christ is indeed our Lord & Saviour (John 3:16, 10:30) who fulfilled the Old Testament Messianac prophecies & that He alone can forgive us of our sins (Luke 5:24; John 14:6).

4) We pray to Christ, either alone or with the help of a Christian, saying that we know He was sent to die on the cross for our sins & that we want that free gift to count for us, too, and we want a relationship with Him.
Note: There is no specific formula for this prayer, as long as we acknowledge Christ's lordship & as our Saviour & that we want to be forgiven. He knows our heart's desire for a relationship with Him, and He will honour this enormous step of faith (even if we think we may have fumbled with our words) with the immediate permanent seal of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16). This seal, the permanent dwelling of the Holy Spirit within us, is the indication that He has honoured our enormous step of faith, and through the conviction of the Spirit, there will be noticeable change in us.

5) Yes, once saved, always saved! Why would the Lord give us His free gift of grace if we keep having to obtain it again? Is that loving or necessary? Just as there's nothing we can do to earn our way into Heaven (we just have to accept His free gift--clearly undeserved by us), there's nothing we can do to earn our way out. (Hebrews 10:14; Romans 8:38-39; Romans 6:8-11)

BTW, biblegateway.com, if you aren't familiar with it, is a great alternative to flipping thru your Bible when looking up various passages at once.

Does this answer your question? I know it's a bit more than even I intended to give, but I hate leaving out details if I can help it.

Entity

|2009-02-19 15:14:16

Now, based on Leon's comments, as I interpreted them, someone who does not believe in "once saved, always saved" and "assurance of salvation" would not understand the Gospel and would be ripe for recruiting. Am I interpreting correctly?

goodmorningmidnight

|2009-02-19 15:55:49

I'm like 4-Him in the sense that I prefer answering in the narrative. :)

I lived a pretty debauched couple of years, so hedonistic that after I ended that lifestyle I remember sitting in my old church aching inside because I thought I had forsaken my salvation for some wholly fruitless--even damaging--kicks. (It has taken a long time for those wounds to heal.) I thought that God hated me for what I did.

Then I joined a women's small group as part of a college Bible study and studied a Christian book with them--right at the very time I was suffering so much. It was then that I finally comprehended God's infinite and unconditional grace. I bawled my eyes out to learn that I didn't lose my way with Him after all!!!! And to this, I still say, Praise God! I had a bit of a bumpy road to spiritual maturity after that, but this was around the time I signed the lease to live with some of the other college girls from Xenos. And it just amazes me to look back over that initial period of recovery, beginning with absolute brokenness. The Lord, in all His grace and mercy, uses times like that to reveal Himself, to call us either to or back to Him. And it was something that I did to screw up my life that He was saving me from!!! How humbling! How undeserving of me to be so loved then!

It really gave me a mindblowing perspective of the prodigal daughter, both in my parents and in God. And to further illustrate my point, if our parents are loving enough not to forsake us when we screw up big-time, then how much more loving is our Creator? This was a huge lesson that I learned then.

On a side note, I couldn't quite wrap my mind around this grace, in the sense of, okay, so I can do whatever I want and it's okay with God? haha, wow, if only I knew to refer to Romans 6 at the time!: " [1] What shall we say, then? Are we to continue to sin so that grace may increase? [2] May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" &etc. in that passage.

goodmorningmidnight

|2009-02-19 16:00:43

Conversely, if I chose not to believe that my relationship with the Lord, though alienated, hadn't been forsaken, then wow, I'd be a pretty hopeless person. I'd probably do all sorts of good and kind things to "redeem" myself, when all the while I'd have guilt and bitterness and misery within me. These efforts to pacify God would be in vain, because I'd really be doing it for myself, which would never be fulfilling.
Thankfully, I'm working as a result of my salvation because of my gratitude, not the other way around: working for the result of my righteousness in God's eyes.

dardrops

|2009-02-19 16:04:30

Not true.

"Once saved, always saved" and "assurance of salvation" are nonessential doctrines.

Essential doctrine - You are separated from God by your sin. You cannot work or earn your way to Him by your good works. You need the death of Christ on the cross to apply to you. But God will not force you to accept His grace. You have to ask for it. It does not occur automatically.
John 1:12; Rev 3:20; John 3:16; Eph 2:8,9.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 16:18:31

I'm with you on "assurance of salvation." Whenever we know in our heart that we have a faithful relationship with Christ, we are indeed saved. But, our assurance is only because of faith.

What if someone chose to drop faith and remain that way until death? In this case, I think they chose to reject God's gift and placed themselves under His wrath again. Galatians 2:18 "if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor."

What of those who choose to, even knowing God's grace, turn away from Him? Even though God desires that they repent and return to Him and works diligently that this may be so, as long as they choose to reject Him and His Son, by what means are they saved?

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-19 17:01:14

emperorbma wrote:

I'm with you on "assurance of salvation." Whenever we know in our heart that we have a faithful relationship with Christ, we are indeed saved. But, our assurance is only because of faith.

I have four words for you to consider carefully:

I never knew you.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 19:40:59

... and one word I have for you: context.

Matthew 7:22-23 "On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name? And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness."

From where I stand, it looks to me like they trusted in their own "good works" and not the blood of Jesus. You see, our assurance is that Christ died for our sin and that God's mercy is upon us by the faith that He created in us.

Our assurance is not that we can save ourselves by works. Furthermore, even somebody saying "I believe that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior," as many Protestants do, but not really having the faith in their heart is just another vain self-righteous "good work." It is only by His grace, through real (i.e. not sham) faith, that anyone is saved. Neither can we conjure up faith by our own strength if we don't have faith, but we must rely solely on His grace and the work of the Holy Spirit to create true faith in our heart. We must be receptive to His saving work and not "harden our heart" as did Pharaoh.

Yet, if we feel His presence in our heart and through our faith, then we can indeed be assured that we are among His elect and chosen host because our election before God is by faith. "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies." (Romans 8:33) Even as "Paul, [is] a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness." (Titus 1:1)

[P.S. This is where I think Calvin got it very wrong. For Calvin, election was something separate from faith. Someone might have faith now, but lack Divine election and then fall. For Luther, election and faith are inseparable. If we fall, it is not because we were not elect but because we chose to reject Christ.]

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-19 20:10:20

But see, I think that the ones turned away thought they were OK. They were under the impression they had been invited guests. Humans have an amazing capacity for self-deception in association with sin.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 20:33:34

Quote:

Humans have an amazing capacity for self-deception in association with sin.

Without a doubt. Not all who claim to be Christian are saved, either.

The problem is, we need the assurance of faith because without the assurance of faith we cannot live a life which glorifies God. If we lack the assurance of saving faith, then we are not doing good works because God is a good, kind and merciful Father, but because God is a tyrannical and harsh judge whom we fear will cast us into Hell at the drop of a hat. This is not the God whom Jesus Christ is teaching of.

Yes, not all who approach Christ crying "Lord, Lord" on the day of judgment will be receiving life. You can bank on that. However, unless we have assurance that faith is worth something to us in terms of Salvation, then we will perpetually wallow in a mire of self-pity and despair for our salvation that undermines our ability to proclaim Christ's mercy and Salvation.

This was the problem that Martin Luther had with the church of which he was a part. When he despaired, the only words he heard were "Not all who cry out Lord, Lord" and he could not believe in his heart that he was saved. He could not accept that his sins were forgiven, despite confessing them daily to his fellow minister. Even upon receiving absolution, he remained in terror. As a result, he could not love God with his whole heart. Who could, given such a terror? However, upon seeing Christ's mercy and the need for grace, he realized that the "Lord, Lord" was not meant to keep people away, but to warn people from straying too far away from Christ! It is this problem that he devoted his life to trying to correct. The problem of people failing to recognize that Christ is "not come into the world to condemn the world, but to save it." It is for this reason he decried placing good works alongside faith in salvation. Because it sets up a roadblock in the believers' own heart to embracing the Gospel.

Like Luther, did before his realization, they say "how can I be good enough?" "How can I merit this wonderful gift that God is offering me?" Yes, the believer will do good works, but those good works must be fruits of salvation because they cannot be the cause of it. Martin Luther himself ended up concluding that true faith does good works naturally as a consequence of what it is, a firm trust in the surety of God's love and grace. The love of God, that is our assurance... and that is why we fight so vehemently.

metallurge

|2009-02-19 20:33:54

Philippians 3:8-17 (NASB):

Quote:

I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.

Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained.

Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 20:43:22

What Paul means when he says "he has not laid hold of it" is that he has not entered into the eternal rest yet. It is clear that someone could fall away if they chose to, but Paul also says this:

Quote:

in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Romans 8:37-39)

The assurance of faith is this assurance, not the guarantee that we cannot be stupid and choose to run away from God's love. If we choose to leave, it is our own foolishness not because God rejected us. This is the blessed assurance that I'm talking about.

The assurance is that so long as we keep the faith, not even the forces of the devil himself can pull us away from the love of Christ. Neither can any force in heaven or earth. The only force that could is our own choice to reject Him and return to our previous life of destruction and who, in their right mind, would honestly want to choose that now that we know the gift we have been given? Some people can choose to fall away, having been deceived by themselves or others, but they made the choice to follow it away from God. Paul purposely excluded personal choice for this discussion because, as far as he is concerned, there is only one choice... to follow Christ.

metallurge

|2009-02-19 20:46:30

I think the key words in all of this are "in Christ", and the perspective that it is not enough to know Christ. What is important is to be found in Him, to be known by Him, to be recognized by Him as His own.

We can know that God is faithful to His word far better than we can know that we will be faithful to our own.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 21:16:36

Quote:

If you mean "know Christ" as the demons who cried "we know who you are" is insufficient, yeah. We Lutherans specifically maintain that "intellectual beliefs" are not salvific. But to truly "know Christ" is to be in Him by faith is it not? We're not merely "intellectually believing," but we also have genuine trust in Him and His Word.

For Lutherans faith is not merely a statement but a transformed heart, a heart which trusts wholly in Christ. We know we are in Him because we know He is in us as well. "In faith itself does Christ dwell," said Martin Luther. The work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts and in our lives moves us to live obediently and, by it, we testify of Him in all that we do.

However, we must not fall into the deception that we can rely on those testimonies or "good works" to save us, but we know and trust fully that the One of whom we testify provides all that is needed for salvation in His blood.

Quote:

We can know that God is faithful to His word far better than we can know that we will be faithful to our own.

Without a doubt. The thing is, this was exactly why Luther didn't trust monastic oaths, seeing them as an attempt to "be faithful to our own" without the corresponding grace of God behind it.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 21:11:36

P.S. I think I found a bug with "no posts below this threshold."

(The post above this one has a "reply" button... but it still put it in the same line; Circumstances also defined, after editing a post the Reply appears)

dardrops

|2009-02-20 09:02:59

Quote:

In this case,I think they chose to reject God's gift and placed themselves under His wrath again. Galatians 2:18 "if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor."

In Galatians, Paul is talking to them about slipping back into living under the Law. False teachers were coming in and telling them that in addition to being receiving Christ they now also had to follow the Law. This isn't about losing their salvation. It's about them being taught (falsely) they now needed to follow the Law to grow.

Galatians 2:4 (NASB)
4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
Galatians 3:2-3 (NASB)
2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

They already have salvation. It's how they are going to going to continue to walk with Lord that was in question.

Quote:

Even though God desires that they repent and return to Him and works diligently that this may be so, as long as they choose to reject Him and His Son, by what means are they saved?

They hadn't rejected Christ. It was an issue of putting themselves back under the Law for sanctification.

Galatians 2:4 (NASB)
4 But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
Galatians 2:20-21 (NASB)
20 "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

Jim	\|2009-02-19 17:04:25

Just and FYI: The technical theological jargon for "nonessential doctrine" is adiaphora or "gray areas" in the faith.

dardrops

|2009-02-20 09:44:22

I like knowing that, Jim. Thanks.

dardrops - re:

|2009-02-20 09:46:39

Quote:

We Lutherans specifically maintain that "intellectual beliefs" are not salvific. But to truly "know Christ" is to be in Him by faith is it not? We're not merely "intellectually believing," but we also have genuine trust in Him and His Word.

I'm absolutely with you on this.

dardrops - re:

|2009-02-20 09:50:15

Quote:

Yes, the believer will do good works, but those good works must be fruits of salvation because they cannot be the cause of it. Martin Luther himself ended up concluding that true faith does good works naturally as a consequence of what it is, a firm trust in the surety of God's love and grace. The love of God, that is our assurance... and that is why we fight so vehemently.

Amen

goodmorningmidnight

|2009-02-19 16:11:47

But to answer your Qs, Entity, I think that first, Person A needs to understand Person B's understanding of the Gospel and vice-versa. That's the pressing need: salvation. But if they cannot even agree on what the Gospel is...well, both with this and the eternal salvation issue in question could be debated until Persons A & B agree to disagree, or God could try to reveal His truths via using His ambassadors or some other form. As Leon had said earlier, ultimately everything, every decision, is between an individual and God. Only God can convict, but only the individual can make the decision to act on or to ignore it. God lovingly stands by His respect for our free will, even if He knows it's destructive. (Otherwise, it wouldn't be our decision.)

Entity

|2009-02-19 15:38:15

In your comments, you list a number of things I believe to be extra-Biblical and would disagree with.

1) Faith alone. "Faith without works is dead." Now, when I discuss this with EmperorBMA, he would tell me that real faith has works, but the comments on "polluting the environment" and following God's law makes it sound like faith that does not have works is acceptable. I think that is contrary to the Bible.

2) The Sinner's Prayer. Whether it has a formula or not, this isn't in the Bible and I believe it gives a false sense of assurance to the prayer. Baptism of water and the Spirit is in the Bible; the Sinner's Prayer is not.

3) Once saved, always saved. Romans 11:22 says "See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." If we disobey God, we will be cut off.

4) Assurance of salvation. Paul says to work out your salvation in fear and trembling. I've known many people who were certain they would be saved, yet no longer have any relationship with God.

If they were certain they were saved and once saved, always saved, how do you explain those who are no longer Christians but knew at one point they were?

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 15:48:22

Quote:

Now, when I discuss this with EmperorBMA, he would tell me that real faith has works,

I verify that statement. Works are a natural fruit of true saving faith.

holmegm - re:

|2009-02-19 15:48:39

Entity wrote:

Romans 11:22 says "See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off." If we disobey God, we will be cut off.

Indeed, but the desire to obey, and the ability to obey, are themselves gifts from God

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 15:57:33

Indeed also. As it also says, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (Philemon 2:12)

Creating faith requires a monergistic act of God through Jesus Christ. Living in faith, once God has created a new will in us, is a more synergic affair. We can, because of the work of God, live a life of obedience in the context of Him having created a saving faith in our heart.

dardrops

|2009-02-19 16:08:54

Yes, we can now be obedient. But only because the power of the Holy Spirit enables you to. Again, it is not our works, it is the power of the HS working in you.

Maybe you are saying the same thing.

Galatians 3:1-5 (NASB)
1 You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? 2 This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 16:24:00

You are quite right that I'm saying the same thing.

As Luther put it in his Small Catechism:

Quote:

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith; in which Christian Church He forgives daily and richly all sins to me and all believers, and at the last day will raise up me and all the dead, and will give to me and to all believers in Christ everlasting life. This is most certainly true.

Without His continuous work in our hearts, we could not even confess with our lips that "Christ is Lord."

dardrops

|2009-02-20 09:28:47

Quote:

Our hermeneutic on this reveals that Romans 9-11 are talking about the nation of Israel, not the Church. But I know a lot of you guys wouldn't agree with that.

Quote:

The Sinner's Prayer. Whether it has a formula or not, this isn't in the Bible and I believe it gives a false sense of assurance to the prayer. Baptism of water and the Spirit is in the Bible; the Sinner's Prayer is not.

I have a problem with formulaic, repetitive prayers, too. Prayer is conversation with God. I don't use a formula to converse with other people, so certainly don't with God. So...help them talk with God.

Frankly, I agree that often people are coerced to "pray the prayer" but don't really know what they are doing. People need to know what the choice is before them, know what they are doing, and make an intelligent, free will decision. Most are perfectly capable of talking to God about the decision after that. Don't need a formula.

This is often the case with canned prayers. They are prayed automatically and don't really mean them.

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-20 10:53:23

dardrops wrote:

There is noting wrong with a formula, per se. Formulaic prayer is throughout Scripture. You are parting ways with the entire Biblical history (OT, Jesus, NT) if you take this position. Moreover, I promise, you do in fact have your own formulas for prayer. You are simply fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

dardrops wrote:

This is often the case with canned prayers. They are prayed automatically and don't really mean them.

It is very dangerous to claim to know another's heart in this way. "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner" has been on my lips frequently. It has been a means of great grace to me. It helps keep me in the right spiritual spot, as it has done for untold numbers of Christians before me.

"Lord, have mercy!" is throughout the Orthodox liturgy (and presumably the Catholic and Anglican liturgy as well) for a reason. Again, it keeps the church in the right spiritual spot. You would probably be shocked into awed silence at how richly Biblical, prayerful, and intentional the Orthodox liturgy actually is. I know I was.

Formulaic prayers, if they are little-o orthodox, are never wrong. They are a convenient way to make a genuine attempt to do 1 Thessalonians 5:17. What means do you use, or do you just give up on it as impractical and not really possible?

Lastly, formulaic prayers permit and reinforce the essential unity of the Body. Surely, there is a place for individual prayers, and it is an essential place of honor. But there is also a place for community prayer, where the fullness of the Kingdom is glimpsed. If you do not like community prayers, I'm guessing that when you are in the presence of the Lord, you are going to be bored. :-)

laika

|2009-02-20 11:31:30

metallurge wrote:

Lastly, formulaic prayers permit and reinforce the essential unity of the Body. Surely, there is a place for individual prayers, and it is an essential place of honor. But there is also a place for community prayer, where the fullness of the Kingdom is glimpsed. If you do not like community prayers, I'm guessing that when you are in the presence of the Lord, you are going to be bored. :-)

early on, i also had to overcome my own hostility to participatory liturgical prayer. with me, this hostility was all part and parcel of the Me, Me, Me, Have it Your Way culture that we are raised in and that saturates our churches. it's nigh impossible to see the beauty and power of community when we're trained from birth to worship first at the altar of the individual experience.

now, if i haven't read the Nicene Creed and prayed
those supposedly empty, rote prayers collectively with my brothers and sisters in Christ when we gather as a body, well it just ain't church! and like you, metallurge, i find that bits of liturgy have migrated into my innermost personal prayer. and i'm occasionally surprised to find bits of "formula" find there way into my everyday speech.

again, for me the hurdle of corporate prayer was really the hurdle of the cultural hostility to community. we are social Darwinians and radical individualists, and it's difficult to leave that at the door when we enter a church.

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 11:24:08

Quote:

Our hermeneutic on this reveals that Romans 9-11 are talking about the nation of Israel, not the Church. But I know a lot of you guys wouldn't agree with that.

You're quite right that I wouldn't agree and I can point out exactly why:

Quote:

if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in. That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. (Romans 11:17-24)

What Paul says here is that we, the Church are actually "grafted into" the same tree as Ancient Israel. Therefore, the Biblical Israel is in direct continuity with the Church of Jesus Christ. We are the same Bride of Christ as the congregation of Israel described in the Torah, which is also referred to as the bride of YHWH.

dardrops

|2009-02-20 20:47:23

This is an old disagreement, for sure. The Church, which is now indwelt permanently by the HS, IS grafted in. But the graft does not replace the original. Israel still exists, and God will return to dealing with her. All the promises God made to Israel will still be fulfilled - to Israel. We are in a parenthetic era now with the Church. When this age is over, God will return to dealing with Israel and there will be a remnant.

He is warning the Church not to be arrogant towards Israel. Salvation was offered to them and because they refused to accept the "stumbling block" it was offered to the Gentiles. As a matter of fact, God had, from the beginning, decided to use Israel and through them "all the world would be blessed." Unfortunately Israel rejected this wonderful position god offered them and then rejected their own Messiah.

However, this is another area where no agreement will be reached. I presume, as a Catholic, you are amillenial. So, we part ways here. But since this is a nonessential doctrine, no biggie for me.

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 21:06:22

Um, I think you had me confused for Entity. Lutherans are also amillennial, however.

The thing is, amillennialism was the major interpretation in most Churches after the Council of Nicea and millennial dispensationalism didn't really become popular until Darby revived the idea in the late 1800s.

There's a few reasons for the historical rejection of pre-millennialism and one of them is that people with millennialist interpretations have a tendency to jump on "the world is going to end in 5 years" gravy train. [... and, clearly, all of those were jumping the gun since we're still patiently awaiting the Second Coming] The main thing is, "no man knows the hour nor the day," and this is one reason why we're critical of these "Left Behind" theologies.

As for the use of Catholic, well... technically it might be a valid historical usage to call a Lutheran "evangelical catholic," but we're clearly not Roman Catholic...

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 21:07:14

P.S. Not much for "bite sized tidbits" am I?

laika

|2009-02-20 22:05:04

emperorbma wrote:

There's a few reasons for the historical rejection of pre-millennialism and one of them is that people with millennialist interpretations have a tendency to jump on "the world is going to end in 5 years" gravy train. [... and, clearly, all of those were jumping the gun since we're still patiently awaiting the Second Coming]

ah, but you will admit, won't you, that End Timers have a proud pedigree, what with Jesus' own followers expecting a speedy return? it's not quite the novelty you present it as if folks have been getting it wrong for over 2,000 years, is it?

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 22:39:27

My words are careful... "amillennialism was the major interpretation in most Churches after the Council of Nicea" allows the possibility that the early Church was predispensational or otherwise.

laika

|2009-02-20 22:56:51

emperorbma wrote:

My words are careful... "amillennialism was the major interpretation in most Churches after the Council of Nicea" allows the possibility that the early Church was predispensational or otherwise.

so again we find ourselves in agreement (if i would only read you more closely first time around :-)

i guess End Timers in the USA trace their roots to the 19th-century craze for it, don't they? some of the more creative American Religions sprang from those roots, IIRC. Baptist Millerites morphing into Seventh-Day Adventists and what not.

So, Here's to the End Times. Ever Popular, Never Stale. (Millerite Brewing Co., all rights reserved)

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 23:13:17

Quote:

(if i would only read you more closely first time around :-)

That is one of the major flaws of my thinking style, I suppose.

dardrops

|2009-02-20 09:42:58

Quote:

If we disobey God, we will be cut off.

Here's the thing about obedience. There sure are a lot of laws that need to be obeyed. Do we have to obey ALL of them or we'll be cut off? Are there only some we absolutely have to obey or we'll be cut off? The obedience thing is sticky. Usually people pick & choose which ones are important, but James says:
James 2:10 (NASB)
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

That's why grace is essential. Christ fulfilled the whole Law. He was the only One who did. Then he died for us to pay the penalty for us NOT being able to keep the Law. He offers forgiveness to us. When we receive it, then we become blameless based on HIS righteousness, not ours. That's grace. Unmerited favor.

Entity

|2009-02-20 09:57:36

There are some sins so severe, they destroy our relationship with God. 1 John 5:16-17 puts this pretty well:

Quote:

If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

The Bible also lists a number of sins that keep us from heaven if they are not repented of. (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 1:8; Eph. 5:5; Heb. 12:16; Rev. 22:15) These cut us off from God and must be repented of to restore our relationship with God.

I have yet to meet a Christian that does not persist in some form of sin. However, I don't think that God will judge a guy who constantly tells his ugly wife she is beautiful the same as the guy who cheats on his ugly wife with someone beautiful. Some sins are deadly; some are just damaging.

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 11:36:30

The thing about it is, properly interpreted this is sound theology. It is rather inescapable that we all sin in some ways and that some sins are not cause for eviction from all faith whatsoever. I would not, however, go so far as saying some sins are "by nature" lesser than any other. Rather, there is a distinction between sins on the basis of "ruling" and "non-ruling" sins in Lutheran theology.

The "sins of weakness" do not rule the believer and, although they are worthy of condemnation in and of themselves, are daily forgiven through the power of Christ at work in our baptism. While all sins destroy saving faith (since sin and faith cannot genuinely cohabit), the Holy Spirit works repentance to bring us back from them rather quickly. Some sins, however, drive away the work of the Holy Spirit in such a manner that it does more to disrupt saving faith.

There is a theology of simul justus et peccator in Lutheran understanding. We are all sinners by nature, yet through Baptism and through faith, God creates a new will in us that corresponds to His grace. Since we are "daily renewed in our Baptism" by the work of the Holy Spirit, the sinful nature is continually drowned out. However, our sinful nature is not removed because it "inheres" in our nature. As we describe it, "the Old Adam is a pretty good swimmer." Only after the Resurrection is the corruption of Original Sin truly purged.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 15:38:58

Quote:

5) Yes, once saved, always saved! Why would the Lord give us His free gift of grace if we keep having to obtain it again? Is that loving or necessary? Just as there's nothing we can do to earn our way into Heaven (we just have to accept His free gift--clearly undeserved by us), there's nothing we can do to earn our way out. (Hebrews 10:14; Romans 8:38-39; Romans 6:8-11)

Put it this way, will God force people to go to heaven who choose not to?

dardrops

|2009-02-19 16:05:24

goodmorningmidnight - re:

|2009-02-19 16:13:26

goodmorningmidnight wrote:

As Leon had said earlier, ultimately everything, every decision, is between an individual and God. Only God can convict, but only the individual can make the decision to act on or to ignore it. God lovingly stands by His respect for our free will, even if He knows it's destructive. (Otherwise, it wouldn't be our decision.)

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 16:20:05

Good, so by what means is it "once saved, always saved" if someone can choose to reject it and make themselves "once saved, now unsaved?"

metallurge - re:

|2009-02-19 16:58:44

emperorbma wrote:

Good, so by what means is it "once saved, always saved" if someone can choose to reject it and make themselves "once saved, now unsaved?"

Crispy?

Jim	\|2009-02-19 17:02:31

Can't really go with you for #5. It contradicts reality. I've known too many Christians who have ditched their faith. Not to mention that you are forgetting that whole "sin against the Holy Spirit" thing.

metallurge

|2009-02-19 17:54:43

They just weren't really among the elect. ;-)

4Him	\|2009-02-19 19:27:33

Your Calvin is showing. lol

Jim	\|2009-02-19 20:49:17

See I tried that Calvinistic thing. A year at Westminster pretty much proved that I was predestined to be an Arminian.

laika

|2009-02-19 16:35:18

Entity wrote:

I agree with him in that I get a different answer from everyone I ask.

how could it be otherwise? a personal faith, a personal relationship, a personal interpretation of the Bible... by definition you're gonna get different answers. this is America, Entity; have it your way!

dardrops

|2009-02-20 09:19:29

Quote:

a personal faith, a personal relationship,

yes.
Revelation 3:20 (NASB)
20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
John 3:16 (NASB)
16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Quote:

a personal interpretation of the Bible.

No. We use a grammatico-historical hermeneutic. You don't get to decide for ourselves. I can't stand those bible studies where you read a bible passage and then go around the circle and they all say, "I think it says this... This means this to me..." We are definitely not ignorant evangelicals like that. I'll get your boat to criticize that for sure.

Ignorant Christians burn me cause I get painted with the same brush. Bet you guys know what I mean.

But grammatico-historical hermeneutical rules are pretty darn easy to learn and use. Then if you use your interlinear Greek NT, it opens things up even more.

4Him - re:

|2009-02-20 09:23:55

dardrops wrote:

Then if you use your interlinear Greek NT, it opens things up even more.

I totally concur. Can't get enough of that Greek.

Entity

|2009-02-20 09:33:21

I know many Christian groups that study the Bible using as many possible tools as are available, yet still end up with diverse and conflicting opinions. What makes your understanding more valid than Luther's or Augustine's or Arius's?

Jim	\|2009-02-20 10:52:37

Interestingly, interlinears are really an affront to the grammatico-historical method.

Interlinears give the possible meanings for a word, but it is only an understanding of grammar and syntax that tells you why the word should be translated one way rather than another.

That being said, using something like the Net Bible is quite helpful, since it has extensive translation notes that explain why one reading is preferred to another.

4Him	\|2009-02-20 14:46:24

I use the Net Bible. I agree it is helpful in making sense of the Greek - especially for novice Koine students.

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 11:09:00

Quote:

We use a grammatico-historical hermeneutic. You don't get to decide for ourselves.

Same hermeneutic here, in fact.

Entity

|2009-02-20 11:28:38

And all your conclusions are the same, right? :-)

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 11:51:10

Yes and no. The major differences I've seen are in the conception of Sacramentology, the OSAS concept and the use of creeds. Other than those, I've noticed a lot of similarity to core Lutheran positions.

dardrops - re:

|2009-02-20 09:21:22

As Luther put it in his Small Catechism:

Quote:

Without His continuous work in our hearts, we could not even confess with our lips that "Christ is Lord."[/quote]

I agree. Very cool.

CoffeeZombie - re:

|2009-02-19 12:18:57

Entity wrote:

And when one goes to an ecumenical Bible study and has multiple people claiming that we worship saints, commit idolatry, put man over God, and disobey the Bible, it can be overwhelming, particularly when being bombarded with Bible quote after Bible quote.

I have found it very difficult to try to explain what the Orthodox Church teaches to someone who is convinced they already know the Church is wrong.

At the same time, even to someone who is honestly curious, the language barrier can make it very difficult to give a simple answer.

I think the "language issue" is part of why people will often think an Orthodox or Catholic person doesn't know what their church teaches. When a Protestant asks me something about the Orthodox Church, I have to remember to listen beyond the question they're asking, and my answer will often not even address the question at all, because I have to answer the errant presuppositions upon which the question in based.

The result of this is that I can rarely offer a "sound-bite" answer. Yes, in many cases, I could easily give a quick answer, quote a Bible verse, etc. in explaining what the Church teaches, but I know that the questioner will not understand. He will, likely, be confused, because he will assume I mean the same thing by certain words or phrases that he does.

This is particularly a problem when I'm talking to an Evangelical, trained in a world of short tracts and snippy Bible quotes. They expect me to be able to respond to their questions with a simple "yes" or "no", or quotes from the Bible. Like I said earlier, I could, but they wouldn't really hear what I'm trying to say.

Granted, in my case, I think I have a bit of an advantage over many of those who were born Catholic or Orthodox: I converted to Orthodoxy from Evangelicalism. In a sense, I'm somewhat like an English speaker who has moved to a Spanish-speaking country. I'm still learning the Orthodox 'language,' but I still also somewhat understand the Evangelical 'language,' so I can speak to my Evangelical friends in a way they can understand (as long as they're patient enough).

Of course, at the same time, there is a lot in the Catholic or Orthodox Church to know, and, honestly, someone such as myself is not going to know everything. It's not necessarily because of a failure in education (although this is, sadly, what lies behind many cases of apparent ignorance, from what I understand), but simply that I can only speak, in large part, of what I have read, and that which I have experienced, in some small way, for myself, I find difficult to put into words.

dardrops

|2009-02-19 16:20:35

Wow, did you guys notice there are over 300 comments on this article? Man, we're #1. That's amazing!

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 16:29:19

Yea, this article probably beats patronpeter's, WebbedFeetofClay's and my record for the longest bit of nonsense. :P

CoffeeZombie

|2009-02-19 16:36:03

Whatever happened to patronpeter, anyway?

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 16:41:42

Dunno, she just stopped posting after a while and hasn't emailed me for a while either.

laika

|2009-02-19 17:08:34

not totally. she drops in for a couple of comments from time to time.

didn't she change jobs from the one that allowed her to use the puter so freely?

Jim	\|2009-02-19 17:20:32

She's changed jobs, locales and colleges. AMOF she's planning on changing schools again. She might be coming to where I work next fall.

laika

|2009-02-19 17:10:54

dardrops wrote:

Wow, did you guys notice there are over 300 comments on this article? Man, we're #1.

cool! and it's a good conversation, too.

j777	\|2009-02-19 19:06:24

Hello, I am from Xenos too, and I look forward to getting involved in this discussion.

I see you guys have covered an incredibly wide range of topics. It was very interesting to read.

I guess I'll begin my time here by asking for clarification:

There are several comments regarding the idea of "eternal security," but none of them (unless I totally missed something) are really addressed. I just wondered if people were confused about the Xenos position, or were just curious about the evangelical position itself, or what.

What I could do is give you my personal view on it and then people can respond to the points they agree or disagree with.

Although I am a Christian, I really enjoy more of discussing philosophical aspects of worldviews more than the existential ones. This is not to say I refuse to talk about existential dilemmas (since most are related to a fundamentally flawed philosophy), I just really get a thrill out of philosophical musings.

Thank you

Jim	\|2009-02-19 20:59:36

Glad to have you on board.

Theophiles does have a wide range of folks including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox (in several flavours) as well as a Missouri Synod Lutheran, an Anglican, a mainstream Presbyterian, an Emergent Baptist and a few Anabaptist.

It's funny to see you write if we are "curious about the evangelical position itself." Most of us are conversant in Evangelicalism. Many of us used to be Evangelicals before the movement jumped the shark. Heck, I taught classes at Fuller Sem for a while!

However, Xenos speaks a pretty peculiar dialect of Evangelicalism, sort of an emergent, house-church, fundamentalist feel. Not to label you, just trying to figure it all out.

Anyway, welcome again to Theophiles.

laika - re: Sticky Wicket

|2009-02-19 21:32:04

emperorbma wrote:

If we lack the assurance of saving faith, then we are not doing good works because God is a good, kind and merciful Father, but because God is a tyrannical and harsh judge whom we fear will cast us into Hell at the drop of a hat. This is not the God whom Jesus Christ is teaching of.

yeah, see, that gets confusing when you tell people that the "God [who] is [not] a tyrannical and harsh judge whom we fear will cast us into Hell at the drop of a hat" is the same God who had to arrange for the torture death of his son in order to appease his righteous wrath. for the uniniated, it kinda makes him sound like, well, a tyrannical and harsh judge when you get into that.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 21:52:17

Quote:

for the uniniated, it kinda makes him sound like, well, a tyrannical and harsh judge when you get into that.

True, true. It is not a simple thing to comprehend my lingo if one thinks of Jesus as being distinct from God.

In the right context, however, it is also expressible by saying that God took our sins upon Himself, being incarnate in the Lord Jesus Christ, and suffered the pain of death for them. Even as He could raise Himself from the dead, and thus is not, as the Neitzcheans claim, still dead but is truly risen. Thus we, too, shall be risen in Him.

Unless, of course, they also have a problem with God being harsh with Himself for our sake.

laika

|2009-02-19 23:07:37

emperorbma wrote:

True, true. It is not a simple thing to comprehend my lingo if one thinks of Jesus as being distinct from God.

oh, i get it. lingo. you're riffing on this:

A man in space sends his son (who is actually him) down from the sky to be tortured and die.

Well, sort of … but not really. You see, he is able to rise from the grave and float back into the sky so that, one day, we can chill with him (them?) for all eternity.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 23:25:40

Ironically enough, I wasn't referencing Maher. It is an interesting observation, nonetheless.

I do think Poe may be involved in this somehow... but I wasn't the one joking.

emperorbma

|2009-02-19 23:36:10

Mayhap I should add a query to this. How do we propose to rectify this situation, or indeed does it even need rectification? Just because it can be lampooned doesn't make it any less valid.

I mean, we all know that apples fall, but doesn't gravity suck? (Think "black hole" metaphor) :P

laika

|2009-02-19 23:53:42

emperorbma wrote:

Just because it can be lampooned doesn't make it any less valid.

strange, that Poe business when juxtaposed with the Bill Maher stuff. didn't Maher just nutshell substitutionary penal atonement and resurrection? who would have a problem with it if he said it with a straight face?

interesting, empy.

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 00:20:28

For just substitutionary penal atonement and resurrection, it is almost impeccable. The "space" bit probably is what would give the lampoon away if someone were being attentive. That is, unless they had a UFO-related interpretation of Christian doctrine.

As I'm sort of implying by pointing folks to the fact, I have no problem having Poe's law used against me and even consider it somewhat interesting. Of course, SPA is not the only theory of the Cross that we Lutherans actually use since we also use Christus Victor theology (Specifically, saying Christ is our "victory over sin, death and the power of the devil.") and also a smattering of "Christ as example."

j777 - re:

|2009-02-20 00:14:56

emperorbma wrote:

I do think Poe may be involved in this somehow... but I wasn't the one joking.

So...wait...is that site real, or a parody? Is the article a parody about a parody that can't be told apart from the authentic thing?

Maybe I've over-analyzed.

emperorbma

|2009-02-20 00:44:31

Yep, you've overanalyzed it. Poe's Law is quite genuine. (Wikipedia, ditzes that they are, consider this usage "non-notable" but this use of the term is well established on the internet)

I can tell you that Jack Chick is one of the real guys and Landover Baptist is one of the parodies listed in the article I had linked.

laika

|2009-02-20 00:31:34

j777 wrote:

So...wait...is that site real, or a parody? Is the article a parody about a parody that can't be told apart from the authentic thing?

is it like those nesting dolls? or like peeling an onion? or like The Onion somehow?

the mind boggles under the weight...

holmegm - re:

|2009-02-21 10:51:42

wezlo wrote:

Quote:

Or in simpler words, it's a guy trying to figure some stuff out, using reasoned argument and source material.

Wait, how's that different from postmodernish people? You just defined the postmodern perspective...

Come, let us reason together. ;)

Nah. The postmodern perspective is to pretend that there is no absolute truth, that the "journey" is all that counts, that all perspectives are equally valid, etc. I say pretend because, well, we all know that the postmodern professor doesn't really think that the mugger's point of view about the ownership of his wallet is as valid as his own.

Analyzing things, making arguments using reason ... heck, Jesus does that too. In fact, He seems to prefer that over deferring to those who own the buildings and claim to own the most ancient traditions.

emperorbma

|2009-02-21 13:20:20

Quote:

Come, let us reason together. ;)

Isaiah 1:18

Quote:

I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my limbs, my reason, and all my senses, and still preserves them;

Small Catechism of Martin Luther

Someone thinks we should be reasonable at all times. But, we should beware that reason isn't used to "rationalize away" truth as rationalists do. (cf. wezlo's description of postmodernism)

holmegm

|2009-03-02 12:04:25

holmegm wrote:

Or in simpler words, it's a guy trying to figure some stuff out, using reasoned argument and source material.

wezlo wrote:

Wait, how's that different from postmodernish people? You just defined the postmodern perspective...

I came across a particularly good description that made me think back to this discussion.

Calviniana

Iain D Campbell wrote:

On the need and nature of grace, Calvin’s views echo Augustine. On the nature of the law of God, his views echo Thomas Aquinas. Where Calvin believed the fathers to be in error in the superior light of Scripture, he said so. Where they reflected the Bible’s teachings, he propounded their views. More often than not, his argument was with the distortion of patristic theology which Calvin often found in the medieval Church.

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member holmegm has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Russian army introduces the flying Orthodox church... (04 April 2013)
Faith - and a side of fries (31 March 2013)
Resigning From the AARP (22 February 2013)
On Metrorail, pastor tries to raise Christmas spir... (27 December 2012)
Tulsi Gabbard, First Hindu Elected To Congress, Wi... (20 November 2012)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online