Christian Civil Wars

I agree but I think a false dichotomy is being made here between defending sound doctrine and preaching the gospel. We can do both and not one at the expense of the other. In fact, the Bible calls us to do both.

 

David, when you read _A Generous Orthodoxy_, I would be interested in your response. McLaren is one of the postmodern christians who is moving away from the bible and from Christ as the only way.

 

The postmodern Christians (also called "the emerging church") believe that there is no propostional truth in the Bible and that Jesus just told stories. Here is what a prof at my seminary had to say on _A Generous Orthodoxy_.

 

I agree but I think a false dichotomy is being made here between defending sound doctrine and preaching the gospel. We can do both and not one at the expense of the other. In fact, the Bible calls us to do both. </font>[/QUOTE]You cannot expect scientists - men who have devoted their lives to some particular academic, predictable, testable pursuit to simply deny their understanding of the universe and the mechanisms by which it operates and embrace your understanding of it in order to know Jesus Christ.

It is enough to say that God created, man disobeyed, God provided the method for reconciliation through the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Those who put a young earth or any other stumbling block before others as a prerequisite to salvation are gonna be in big big trouble.

 

David, when you read _A Generous Orthodoxy_, I would be interested in your response. McLaren is one of the postmodern christians who is moving away from the bible and from Christ as the only way.</font>[/QUOTE]That is simply not true. have you read the book yet?

 

Your posts in the thread referenced is in relation to people laughing at/mocking "Christians". The way in which you made defense of those who are mocked was, in my opinion, baseless.

This thread is making an attempt to magnify the importance of Salvation in light of everything else Biblical. I couldn't agree more with this line of reasoning, but couldn't disagree more with you in the other thread (Pentecostal Man's Glossolalia...).

Loving sinners and ensuring that they recieve the gospel is of utmost importance and I don't know of any Christian, who in word, would disagree with that. I would imagine all of the posters who disagreed with you on the other thread agree with the premise laid out by this original post.

 

Except, csmith, that to many of those posters, a belief in Christ as outlined by this OP doesn't go far enough. Ask them! Many of those same people you so vehemently support as being Right posted that the Apostle's Creed does not go far enough in establishing a Christian orthodoxy!

We've strayed so far down the path of "my theology is more perfect than yours" that we cannot even agree on what Gospel it is important for sinners to receive! David is making the excellent point that much of what we hold jealously to as Important simply is not.

 

csmith, if interested the thread tragic_pizza refered to above is HERE . BTW, I was one of the ones who said the Apostles Creed "does not go far enough"

 

I would bump it for you but it got locked and I got my hand slapped.

 

I see what you are saying TP, but my point is: Apart from the Apostles Creed, which I see as a man-made orthodoxy (of course based on some Scripture), most Christians that I come into contact with believe that the regeneration of a lost soul is of utmost importance.

This may sound irreverent, but I could care less about a statement of orthodoxy (AC). Does the Bible not spell out doctrine for us?

I am a late-comer on this thread. Am I just missing the point? If I am, please target me and get me in line.

 

Well, the Bible does spell out orthodoxy for us, sure.

But how? Where do you start in building an orthodoxy? If you're all by your lonesome, what is the foundation of your orthodoxy? Leviticus? Ezekiel? Matthew? Revelation? Every orthodoxy has its foundation.

Were we independent Wiccans, the foundational orthodoxies wouldn't matter. We are, however, Christians, and as such operate (in a perfect world) as a cohesive Body of Christ. Thus there are some core orthodox beliefs to which we all must agree. These beliefs are most often laid out in various creeds which, while arguably man-made, serve to offer a template from which Biblical orthodoxy may grow.

I may be noted here that the original intent of the Fundamentalist movement was to offer constantly fragmenting denominations a set of core "fundamentals" on which they could all agree. That this did not work is further evidence of the Church's slide into selfcenteredness and irrelevance.

 

Maybe then, the issue is "Importance of Established Orthodoxy"?

I hear often in Biblical discussions, "Christians have believed 'this' or 'that' since the 4th century" (or whatever). Let me tell you how important established orthodoxy is for me. I am willing to alter any belief that I currently have so long as the Bible can prove me wrong. There are many people who are cemented to orthodoxy, customs and traditions to the point that Scripture can make no alterations.

The foundation of my orthodoxy is not Leviticus, Exodus, etc. It is the whole counsel of God's Word. I believe that any lonesome individual can take the Word and establish, by the help of the Spirit, what is true.

IMO, I just don't see the need for the AC or any other creed--especially if they disagree.

 

OK, define the "whole counsel of God's Word." According to whom? Do you rely solely upon yourself to interpret Scripture (with, of course, the help of the Holy Spirit), or is there a teacher or particular congregation with whom you enjoy fellowship and instruction?

 

The Bible--Genesis to Revelation (no church history, no creed, no tradition, no custom). I have faith that God's Word is available to me at the local bookstore. Yes, I rely soley on myself (with the help of the Holy Spirit) to interpret Scripture. Will I listen to other people? Yes, but even then, if what they say doesn't "jive" with Scripture, then I reject it--all by myself. Can the Spirit lead us into "all" truth? I believe He can.

I enjoy fellowship with a congregation--of which I am the pastor. Is there instruction in our midst? Yes. Instruction from God's Word--opinions are accepted very carefully.

TP,
Would you care to answer your own questions? JFI.
Thanks

 

I think that it is a mistake to dismiss all of history out-of-hand as irrelevant. We can learn both from the successes and mistakes of those who went before us.

I, too, believe that Scripture is inspired and infallible as the source of doctrine and spiritual truth. I'm Presbyterian, with a history in the Southern Baptist, Episcopalian, and Church of God denominations, and have experienced fellowship in several other groups, including National Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, AME-Zion, and Assemblies of God.

All of these traditions bring with them unique interpretations of Scriptural truth, and I have learned from them all. I think that this penchant we Christians have for separating from one another over "disputable things" is a horrifying disservice to the Body of Christ, and were I to have my deepest wish, I'd be able to play some part in the reuniting of Christ's body under the Head.

I am sick almost to tears of petty bickering amongst Christians, of the outright derision and mocking of those who don't match up to our particular interpretation of the Word. I believe God is bigger than my mind can comprehend, and that He knows better than I who is Right and who is Wrong, and it isn't therefore my job to decide who is "in" and who is "out."

 

"Does the Bible not spell out doctrine for us?"

NO, it does not! If it did there would not be over 100 "Christian" denominations

 

Curious: Do you consider this debative board bickering or maybe constructive arguing? I don't know that you and I have agreed on much in any thread. Are we bickering?

 

billwald:

What a miserable failure God must be if His Word is not able to spell out doctrine for us. Where do you get your doctrine?