Bapticostal

I agree 100% in principle, but in reality I have a problem, but I don't have the answer. Let me present it to the group for discussion since it is along the theme of this thread.

If we are to believe everybody that says Jesus is Lord, we have to include the Mormons and I have a REAL problem with that. The Mormons will not blink and eye or flinch when they say "Yes" to the question is "Jesus Christ your Lord?" Though, they believe in a Jesus that is a brother of Satan. Obviously not the same Jesus we believe in.

In fact, our local Reorganized Church of Latter Day saints just recently renamed their church to "Community of Christ". I don't know if this is just local or Worldwide, but at the rate the Mormons are growing, how do we handle this issue.

I think we need to go a little deeper than Jesus is Lord; but how do you do it?

Do you include people who are in the Church of Christ? Is a person saved if they believe they have to be dunked before getting the salvation? Doesn't that show a lack of faith in the Lord Jesus only?

mickd7, I am not arguing with you, please understand, just making a real-world observation of a problem to something that is obviously more difficult to actually impliment than talk about it. I don't know, I don't have the answer. . .

 

I agree with Phillip, we must go deeper. That which is crucial in determining whether one is a member of the Church, the family of God, saved is what they believe about Jesus. Who He is and what He has accomplished. Just about every religion will say they believe in Jesus, but they don't mean the same thing when they make that statement. Examples: Muslims--a great prophet, JW--Savior but not God, Mormons--brother of Lucifer, Hindu--an assended master, CofC--Savior but not quite enough to save without baptism, Catholic--Savior, but again other things are needed along with Him like keeping the Sacraments. etc....

You see Jesus' name has been so misused by religions today it is not enough just to ask if one believes in Jesus. It is crucial to ask what they believe about Jesus to discover if they are talking about the Jesus of the Bible. Maybe this is a place to start.

Bro Tony

 

Amen, Bro Tony, and not only that you have to watch those like the Mormons who will say that Jesus IS God, but they don't mention that he was once just a man who made "god" status. Sad.

 

I don't even know why a Mormon could be compared to a Christian in the first place. Sure they believe in Jesus, but it something completely different and truly disturbing. They come in as angels of light but all of their doctrine is built upon lies. I wouldn't appreciate someone having running fits at my church and going into convulsions but they can still be Christian. On the other hand, Mormons and JW's do not even have the fundamentals of the faith. There are multiple gods, Jesus was a created being, they can obtain godhood, etc.... I do agree that we need to make sure our services don't get out of control though.

 

The critical distinguishing mark for me to separate the sheep from the goats out of those who claim Jesus as Lord is that all 'Christian fringe' cults such as Mormons, Christadelphians, JWs deny that Jesus is God and deny the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead. 'Twas always ever thus - you only have to look at the ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries to see that they were all about combatting these sorts of Christological heresies. Now, applying this to Pentecostals, Elim and AoG are orthodox in their Trinitarianism; Oneness Pentecostals (the name's a bit of a giveaway ), OTOH, deny the Trinity, and hence are heretics.

I think that's a fairly good starting point...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Ecumenical councils--

What if the ecumenical councils were in fact held by heretics--and many of the "heretics" were in fact orthodox???

Does anyone let God's Word decide what is orthodox? We seem to be diligently trying to force Ancient Fathers apocryphal writings and fleshly tradition into "orthodoxy" to the exclusion of the Word of God; which,in actuality is the only rule of faith and practice.

There is little doubt that what made the "religion" column in the "Rome Daily News", circa 325 A.D. was probably throughly corrupted by the death of Constantine the Great.

"The mystery of iniquity is already at work"

Selah,

Bro. James

 

So, are you claiming that Arians, Monophysites and Nestorians are orthodox? (Now, I can accept the argument that says "The first four ecumenical councils were the right decisions made by the wrong people and that their rulings were already plain from Scripture", but to hint they were the wrong decisions?? )

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Christadelphians???

Matt,

Could you send me some info on them? I've never heard of them. What's their belief system?

 

"Ask and ye shall receive..."

http://www.christadelphian.org.uk/ <note to mods: this is a link to a non-Christian site and you may wish to delete it; apologies if I have transgressed>

In case the link is deleted, basically they believe that Jesus is Son of God, not God the Son; like the JWs they also believe the HS is an impersonal force not God.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I've been accused of that very thing...and we haven't gone "contemporary." We've gone "blended." We have maybe three praise choruses during our music time - that's it! Everything else in traditional. But all the same, some folks have mentioned how we've "gone Pentacostal."

 

How can I resist this one? The first council taught some good things, but it is pretty well admitted today that the so-called Semi Arians were in fact Orthodox, and were simply unhappy with the unscriptural language of the Athanasian party. Still the Nicene Creed is still a pretty good guide....even though much of evangelical protestantism - following the heretical John Calvin - denies its teaching. Nicaea also split the Christian world into patriarchies - another heresy.

Chalcedon (451) - how can anyone say anything good about that one? Vain speculation had become the litmus test for true christianity. Or Ephesus (431) with its theotokos?

Dean

 

Yes, but those people in the mainline denominations atleast have the fundamentals. The mormons don't have anything to stand on, period...

I think we are all going to find we are wrong about something. Unless of course one's a know-it-all.

I never said anything bad toward the pentacostals, I was just pointing out a few dangers in some "over"charismatic congregations. I agree though, we need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

 

Hey Mick,

I wasn't trying to say that you said mormons are Christian. I misworded it. Sorry. I was just trying to say that mormons have nothing to stand on, as you said.

 

How can I resist this one? The first council taught some good things, but it is pretty well admitted today that the so-called Semi Arians were in fact Orthodox, and were simply unhappy with the unscriptural language of the Athanasian party. Still the Nicene Creed is still a pretty good guide....even though much of evangelical protestantism - following the heretical John Calvin - denies its teaching. Nicaea also split the Christian world into patriarchies - another heresy.

Chalcedon (451) - how can anyone say anything good about that one? Vain speculation had become the litmus test for true christianity. Or Ephesus (431) with its theotokos?

Dean </font>[/QUOTE]I'm intrigued by your comments re the semi-Arians being orthodox; could you expand on that please?

Both Ephesus and Chalcedon were invaluable IMO, despite the Ephesian formulation of the theotokos doctrine re the Virgin Mary (in any even this was intended to be a Christological rather than Mariological statement to counter Nestorianism), Ephesus affirmed that Jesus was One Person, not two; and Chalcedon affirmed over and against monophysitism and docetism that He had Two Natures, not one (fully God and fully Man). I don't see how you can say that they had nothing good about them, therefore

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I think it was Latourette's History of Christianity in which I read a good discussion of that - though I have come across bits here and there in journals etc, which pretty much say that the semi arians were for the most part orthodox, and were unhappy introducing innovations to the apostolic faith in the form of new words - they were also unhappy at the word hoo-ousios because it had been used by Sabellians - it was only after they were assured of a correct understanding of the word that they were willing to concede to the demands of the emperor that the word be used. For an account of what the semi arians believed about Christ, one only has to read the first few chapters or so of Eusebius' ecclesiastical history - with its awesome presentation of the deity of Christ. The famous Bishop Bull in his word Defence of the Creed of Nicaea (which I totally recommend to anyone and everyone) says:

The Council of Antioch held against Paul of Samatosa about 60 years before Nice, expressly repudiated the term [homo-ousios]. This was because "He (Paul of Samasota) might have admitted the term in the same sense as Sabellius" (Petavius). Sabellius had troubled the church with his false teaching of modalism, teaching that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were simply three modes or manifestations of the one God. the Council of Antioch therefore in reaction rejected the term 'Homo-ousios'. Sandius (Enucl. Histor. Ecclesiast.i.p112.) wrote concerning the semi arian party at Nicaea: "For they who repudiated the term "of one substance", affirmed that those who approved of it, were introducing afresh the opinions of Montanus and Sabellius, and accordingly they called them blasphemers. Socrat. Eccl. Hist.i.23, and Sozom.ii.18."
Socrates and Sozomen relate that after the Nicene council there were great contentions concerning the word homo-ousios amongst the very bishops who subscibed to the Nicene Creed, especially between Eusebius Pamphili and Eustathius of Antioch; the former with his party charging Eustathius and his party, who asserted the article "of one substance," with Montanism and Sabellianism. Eustathius' teacher Marcellus was pure Sabellian, and therefore it seems that Eustathius tried to introduce this doctrine into Nicaea. The bishops assembled at Antioch singled Eustathius out for "holding rather the opinions of Sabellius, than those which the council of Nice decreed" and deposed him from the See of Antioch.

I disagree, respectfully. There were two Councils of Ephesus held in the same year - one held by the western churches, which condemned the eastern, and one held by the eastern which condemned the western. Even the pope in meeting an eastern patriarch some years ago (I think '84 - but not sure) acknowledged they held no heresy.


Well gotta go - i might try and come back to this later. take care
Dean

 

Thanks, Dean. I can see how 'homo-ousios', which in any event does not translate well from the Greek (cp. Latin 'consubstantia' and the English Nicene Creed - "being of one substance") led to accusations of Sabellian modalism.

Re Ephesus and Chalcedon - I accept what you say re the methodology of the Councils, but surely that does not negate the Christological truths affirmed therein?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt - all I can say is that I believe those two councils defined things way to precisely, using words and concepts open to far too much misinterpretation, and that the councils were illegal in both cases since whole segments of the church did not agree with the narrowly defined definitions. I think even if they were true - and honestly I need to study more into them - that they go beyond what is clearly written. The Assyrian church today holds to and believes in the incarnation. I think we always need to be careful with words like 'person' and 'nature', and that we are commanded to form our speech on the pattern or form of sound words - 1Tim1:13.

Chalcedon also placed Constantinople as second after Rome in ecclesiastical affairs, - for 'Constantinople is New Rome.'
Regards
Dean

 

I've been accused of that very thing...and we haven't gone "contemporary." We've gone "blended." We have maybe three praise choruses during our music time - that's it! Everything else in traditional. But all the same, some folks have mentioned how we've "gone Pentacostal." </font>[/QUOTE]Most people do not like change. If they are comfortable singing old hymns all Sunday, then that's what they want to do. When the church evolves with younger generations, the older generations ALWAYS complain. Songs we youth sang in church camp in the early seventies are now in the hymn book. They were considered "contemporary youth music" at the time. They wouldn't last. Next generation, the change takes place.

This is by no means to say all changes are right. This is to point out that changes in music style are naturally going to occur and have occurred since hymns were again allowed in the churches in the early 1800's. That in itself caused quite a fight among the older generations.

Just because another group does something does not necessarily make it bad. I like seafood. So does a murderer in prison. That does not make us both a murderer. Now, if I start picking up his "murdering" habits, then the change becomes corruption.