The Weekend Word
Hebrews Ch 12
Jesus, Founder and Perfecter of Our Faith
1Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
- Therefore ties us back to Hebrews 11 people of faith
- Those who came before us – those who died in the SAME faith
- We / They are being called to put into action that faith in Christ that saves as witnessed by the great cloud of witnesses.
- Jesus was faithful to them, saved them. It is not so much what they did – but what Jesus did.
- What holds us back? What are we told to lay aside?
- Every weight – and sin
- Let the race be our only thought.
- Who is called to be the witnesses? Them? – the Hebrews? Us?
- The witnesses of Ch 11 – we are told what they did, not what they said.
- If they were to speak a witness what would they say?
- They trusted in the promises of God – and we say that many never saw those promises come to fruition. (see v 2 for what they would say.)
2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
- This is their witness – they were looking to Jesus
- They said Jesus was the founder of the faith
- The perfecter – the one who because of who he was and what he did – made the faith real. Never forget that Jesus produces the faith in us … not our actions.
- And they would say why he was made man and was sent to earth – to endure the cross
- And where he is today.
- TODAY many people see themselves as the “authority of their own faith”
- They have weighed the evidence and the options and “decided” to accept Jesus … and the result?
- I become the “perfecter” of my faith – I work on my sanctification daily.
3 Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.
- Consider him … stop and consider – don’t let it just drift past
- Jesus suffered what you are suffering – hostility against himself
- Do not grow weak – do not be discouraged.
- If you look to yourself, there is a good chance you will get discouraged
- Do we fall into a trap of setting ourselves up for failure?
4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.
- They are being persecuted, but they are not yet being martyred.
- But because things will be tough, does not guarantee that Jesus will protect you from harm.
- Live your life recognizing your hardships
- If the world was bold enough to persecute God – they will have no problem doing the same to us.
5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him.
- What??? This may be coming from God?
- Discipline as teaching – not punishment – is proof of our sonship.
6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”
- What constitutes a child of God?
- We learn from discipline about our sonship.
7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
- God’s discipline is what gives us the UMPH to endure.
- God does not say “if you go through troubles” but says “when you go through troubles.
8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
- Is everyone a child of God? Nope.
9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live?
- Respect for the spiritual father vs earthly fathers
- This also includes civil leaders who rule over us.
- What about our church leaders? Do we give them any rule over us today?
10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.
- Share in God’s holiness – do we ever get to “feel” holy?
- Example of a wedding – the groom is standing up front watching his bride come down – all he sees is white and her beauty.
- The bride is walking down and all she sees and feels are all of her blemishes.
- Did my makeup cover up OK, is my hair OK, how is my dress, etc?
- God sees perfection in Jesus Christ – but the Church knows all the blemishes.
11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
- In the end, the result should be kept in mind – not the process.
Just a Sunday morning thought. My teachings on these Weekend Word pages mean very little if they do not move people to action. I am attaching an article here from Rod Rosenbladt at 1517 the Legacy Project.
My challenge to you is to read the article and if you go to church today (or if you are one who watches on the internet) to listen closely and see if the sermon / the teaching (the whole service in fact) is about you (the Christian) or if it is about Jesus (the Christ) – and if you find it is about Jesus is it about Jesus for you the Christian?
http://www.1517legacy.com/rodrosenbladt/2016/01/how-to-choose-your-church/
“8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.”
Where do we find this discipline in a nation such as America? The author of Hebrews draws our attention to Christ’s Church:
“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.”
“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
Some here have been abused and hurt by prior church experiences. Please don’t give up on the Church on account of these bad experiences. The Church is where Christ has promised to be present for you. It is where He has promised to gather his people and deliver his gifts of absolution and life of each of us individually. Such faithful churches still dot the landscape of America in large numbers.
I want to add to my #2 above by saying that God’s word of Law and discipline, is His penultimate word. His ultimate word to us is His Son crucified for our sins and raised for our justification. The church is where Christ promises to be for us with His ultimate word.
There is so much here, but I too want to focus on that discipline.
This, to me, is one of the most neglected of all Christian precepts.
My tradition believes in the perseverance of the saints, that those who are truly regenerate will persevere to the end.
The discipline of God is one of the primary tools that enable that perseverance.
In a similar vein, Lutherans and Calvinists who emphasize grace are often accused of being anti nomian and of being purveyors of cheap or easy grace.
There is no such thing…the discipline of God makes sure that grace is also transformative.
I want to be clear on Michael’s point. I do not want to be lumped in with those who are accused of being a ‘purveyor of cheap or easy grace’. Oh such heresy, such a jab at all the work of Jesus Christ.
No, I want to stand tall and state clearly what I believe. Grace is not cheap and it is not easy — grace is absolutely, 100% free. No strings attached.
Now, any verses about discipline must be taken on their own and cannot be piggybacked onto grace at all. Live with the tension – there is free grace and there is discipline and one does not act nor intersect with the other.
MLD,
I thought it important to bring up as we’ve seen often here the claims that emphasizing grace results in scandalous living and an increase of sin.
I would contend that this is untrue..as we have a Father ready to discipline us.
That discipline is always rehabilitative,not retributive and is an act of grace in itself.
“grace is absolutely, 100% free. No strings attached.”
Grace is free on our end, but very costly to God. God paid for our sins with the life of the Son. Jesus took our place, to give us His place.
Jean,
If you gave me season tickets to the Dodgers (and feel free to do so) do I not say “I got these tickets for free”?
That goes with the definition of Grace – free to me. But then again, I may be more RADICAL than you 😉
MLD,
It’s closer to say that you stole Michael’s tickets and when the cops showed up to arrest you, I showed up and took the rap for you. I even made restitution for you by giving Michael my tickets, so you could still go to the game. 🙂
Jean,
Giving Dodger tickets to a Giants fan is not gracious… 🙂
it seems to more difficult to describe what God’s grace is than it is to describe what it does…
… and on the other side, just what is an antinomian? Has there ever been in the history of Christianity someone who self identifies as a nomian Christian?
This thread has picked up on the nature of grace. Here is a short message, given this morning, on the nature and beauty of grace. Remember the woman who asked for just a few crumbs of Jesus’ favor? Please give this a listen:
https://thefirstpremise.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/sermon-on-matthew-1527-28-even-the-dogs-are-in-christ/
Once again Donovan Riley is able to do that Lutheran trick – preach Jesus Christ for you, for your sins … to the believer. A demonstration of absolute free grace no strings attached.
What does he say in there when the Canaanite woman hears his message, what should be her only response? To shut up, just shut up – believe it and enjoy it. Because she has always been “in Christ”
I don’t want to be caught bragging about being a prophet – but hey, when it’s true, it is true. Over the years I have teased that the ‘evangelical’ method of taking communion could be compared to the ‘remember me’ being no more than singing “for he’s a jolly good fellow” to Jesus and the cup no more than a toast to Jesus.
Well it has happened – here at Applegate CC this morning you can watch Ben Courson actually say “we toast you Lord” as they took the cup
* I have no idea what he was doing at the first part going on about Psalm 23 — but it wasn’t what Jesus was doing as he instituted the Supper. Nothing matters in todays evangelical service – there are no boundaries – no rules… but the people feel good doing their own thing and God weeps.
You need only bare this for the first 2:15 min.
http://www.applegatefellowship.org/teachingsplay.asp?teaching=FS-2016-02-21&teacher=fullservices
That was…unique.
but the people feel good doing their own thing and God weeps.
——————————————————-
Yep…thanks for posting this, MLD.
I think we all can agree the guy in that video is a doofus. I could tell that without ever getting to the toast.
But I have to ask, in light of these kind of comments, ” Nothing matters in todays evangelical service.”…
What does this guy have to do with me? Why does one doofus broadbush millions of unrelated people?
Josh, Perhaps it’s time to stop identifying with these evangelicals – so when I say “those evangelicals it won’t upset you. 🙂
A. – I don’t identify with them.
B. – You didn’t say those, you used the broad brush “today’s evangelicals.”
C. – It doesn’t upset me so much as I just wish we were more precise in whom we are condemning.
Look, we Lutherans were the first evangelicals and it was in the original German Lutheran churches name Evangelical Lutheran Church … but in German.
We Lutherans were the first protestants – but with both titles we have given them up – yes we let American Evangelical Protestants steal the names and we do not use them because they — well, they ain’t like us no more.
So to not be identified as such, we just call ourselves Lutherans and go our merry way. When some speaks of the evangelicals, we know it is not us – and when they speak of protestants, again we know it’s not us..
For churches that are outwardly non confessional, non creedal and non liturgical – what in their system keeps them from doing exactly what Ben Courson did?
Could I post something bad from a Lutheran church and say: See those Lutherans are on the fast track to Hell! Would that be fair?
Many have – I grew up in evangelical Protestantism (both CC and SBC) who would outwardly suggest Lutherans as just above RCC in the not saved category. I am sure I repeated their mantra in the classes I taught for them.
So yes, I guess you could.
Look, I thank God for young men like Ben. I know he has been a blessing to our high school and middle school youth and no doubt a huge number of others. Even in this clip he is quoting the Bible (even if arguably out of context) and referencing Christ’s death for our sins which is more than some churches do out there.
This is an example of where an elder could take him aside and could be a teachable moment. If not his dad then one of the elders who served with his dad. Maybe even his brother could. ala Apollos in Acts.
We all know if MLD paid us $10 bucks for every time he ripped on the non-Lutheran Christians (especially evangelicals) as somehow the problem with the world, and we paid him $10 for every time MLD referenced the world, flesh, and devil as the real enemy of God we would all come way out ahead in that transaction. So of course he is going to gloat and condemn millions of brothers in Christ once he got this clip. One might ask why he so desperately seeks out these examples to post here…..
It’s how he rolls….
So you agree with everything any Lutheran has said on the internet, and if I condemn it, it is only because I am following an SBC mantra?
Ben Courson has been in a pulpit for years.
It would seem to me to be a little late to have a “teachable moment” over something as important as the Lords Supper.
As far as MLD’s critiques…while they may be broad they are usually worth consideration.
sound doctrines are sound doctrines… however, it is the heart of the person who is hearing or expressing sound doctrine that God honors… it doesn’t matter whose pew you’re sitting on or from what pulpit you’re looking down…
the bad and the good aspect of being evangelical is that you can express your heresies out loud, you aren’t able to hide your heart behind a script as well as some others do
it is good that MLD points out these heresies for us
My point is that you will never see anything like that at my church…or 1000’s of other churches.
The critique was (and is always) pointed at evangelicals, but it really only applies to this guy.
Steve – I try to be kind and not blame the craziness of you evangelical on the devil. If you think my comments would be more on track by pointing out that Ben Courson and others are Satan’s pawn – heck I need the $10.
I just know that if I had not pointed it out, you guys would not call him out and in Steve’s case, your high school and middle school would be infested with this stuff.
But I asked above “For churches that are outwardly non confessional, non creedal and non liturgical – what in their system keeps them from doing exactly what Ben Courson did?”
You won’t see it at my church either…but I could go to many churches here in the valley and see something similar.
The point being without a creedal or confessional base to work from, this sort of nonsense is not unusual.
And Lutherans do call out these actions among ourselves – we have a contingent in the LCMS that is trying to act like a bunch of evangelicals.
The Five Two network – so I would be happy if you helped us call them out.
No, it is terribly unusual. Very much in the minority of what goes on in SBC churches, of which there are 43,000. THis is in no way the norm.
So what systematically stops it? Only congregational rule. What the guy in the video would not likely get him kicked out of the SBC, but it would put his job in jeopardy at most SBC churches. Many churches (including mine) have written policy on how, when, and why communion is to take place. A rogue pastor could try to sneak something by, but it is unlikely to fly.
What system stops Lutherans from endorsing gay marriage?
Before Communion, we all recite the following (or the priest reads it out loud, to which we say “Amen.”) There is no opportunity for creativity.
“I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, Who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first. I believe also that this is truly Thine own pure Body, and that this is truly Thine own precious Blood. Therefore I pray Thee: have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and of deed, of knowledge and of ignorance. And make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Thy most pure Mysteries, for the remission of my sins, and unto life everlasting. Amen.”
I just know that if I had not pointed it out, you guys would not call him out and in Steve’s case, your high school and middle school would be infested with this stuff.
————————————————————————————
No, our leaders would see the problem and deal with it if it took place in our midst.
I was sincere in thanking you for posting it….I also was sincere in my comment once the piling on of not just this one man but the totality of evangelicalism began,
And I don’t think we are ever too old or experienced for teachable moments…..
What system stops Lutherans from endorsing gay marriage?
In the LCMS we break off altar and pulpit communion with those who would stray.
But you are arguing for what the SBC does or doesn’t do and I never said anything against the SBC. I want to know why you would still want to self idenity with a group called evangelicals.
If I asked you and a couple of others to write out a 2 paragraph description of what an evangelical is and what boundaries they hold to would they come out the same?
Benny Hinn calls himself and evangelical – Joel Osteen calls himself and evangelical – Steve calls himself and evangelical as do you – RC Sproul calls himself an evangelical. So what is the commonality that the term must be protected from the like of me?
I think an Evangelical sees himself as uniquely “bible-believing” in a way that other churches are not. I think they see other churches as being tainted by either liberalism or a reliance on Tradition.
While it bothered me to see what Ben did with communion, does anyone know if they always following it with Tithes and Offerings?
If its their order of service, then so be it. But it struck me as “We just toasted Jesus! Let’s give our money now before we worship.”
Xenia,
Your #34 is a beautiful liturgy. Liturgical worship, based on the historic rule of faith, is an effective protection against heresy and false teaching. Another protection are the Confessions. This is a passage from the Lutheran Confessions that directly addresses what we saw in that video:
“On account of this old Adam, which still inheres in the understanding, the will, and all the powers of man, it is needful that the Law of the Lord always shine before them, in order that they may not from human devotion institute wanton and self-elected cults [that they may frame nothing in a matter of religion from the desire of private devotion, and may not choose divine services not instituted by God’s Word]”
If you read through the OT books of Kings, one of the things that the evil Kings had in common was the institution of unauthorized worship. Christ has given us the times, places and means by which He will serve us with his mercy and grace. Outside of His means, we approach a Holy God as unclean sinners, and that doesn’t end well.
“Benny Hinn calls himself and evangelical – Joel Osteen calls himself and evangelical – Steve calls himself and evangelical as do you – RC Sproul calls himself an evangelical. So what is the commonality that the term must be protected from the like of me?”
And a lot of ordained Lutheran ministers call themselves gay.
And I don’t identify as evangelical, but let’s not be silly and pretend that it’s not a term that has commonly accepted meanings. To most everyone in the world, the SBC is the largest evangelical denomination.
One of the oddest things in Presidential exit polls is they always ask a few religious questions and one is a yes/no if you are evangelical/born again (this is a different question from the Protestant or Catholic or “other” question so there is zero connection to being born again and being anything BUT evangelical in the minds of these pollsters)
But the thing is, they don’t just ask evangelical/born again – they add “white” to it. And nowhere do they ask non-white evangelical born again.
If you read through the OT books of Kings, one of the things that the evil Kings had in common was the institution of unauthorized worship.
——————————————————
Jean, I am teaching Kings right now. I would beg to differ that the emphasis is FALSE worship of FALSE Gods, not somehow incorrect worship of the True and Living God.
Just look at what happened immediately after the split – calf worship in the North, pagan off and on throughout the South.
I also think it is a stretch to compare the detailed specifics of proper temple worship in the Old Covenant to the New where we are the temple of God and we worship Him in Spirit and in Truth….
Like I said, isn’t it wonderful to see so many people, especially young people, at a church that is worshiping Jesus, hearing the gospel and proclaiming Scripture….
MLD’s communion criticisms always, ALWAYS must be filtered by the knowledge that he would deny communion to just about every Christian on this blog.
Steve,
And you would pass out the elements to just anyone who walks in the door. Ben Couson was just more open about. He didn’t wait for people to sit down – he had the ushers say “Good morning, here is your bulletin, here is your communion pack, please go find a seat.”
Yes, you hit the nail on the head — we are a bit more particular.
On a side note….the excellent apologetic for the “real presence” in “Wittenberg vs. Geneva” almost has me convinced…
Almost…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/us/26lutheran.html?_r=0
Yes, particular indeed.
MLD doesn’t belong to that branch of Lutheranism…and they actually make his point.
That group has abandoned the historic Lutheran confessions for the most part…and that’s what you get without a solid foundation.
So to broadbrush MLD with the label of Lutheran, as attached to these goobers, would be…unfair?
Yes, It would be…because the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has very clear and distinct doctrinal and ecclesiastical guidelines.
Steve – “I also think it is a stretch to compare the detailed specifics of proper temple worship in the Old Covenant to the New where we are the temple of God and we worship Him in Spirit and in Truth….”
As you are aware from your study of the OT, temple worship was highly regulated because bringing unclean things (e.g., strange fire) or people into the sacred space of the Holy God desecrated God. The penalty was death.
This is precisely why “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.”
Worship in “Spirit and in Truth” does not mean that (1) God is no longer Holy, (2) Humans are no longer unclean, or (3) that Jesus’ atoning sacrifice for us is available outside His designated means of grace.
What this pastor did, despite the crystal clear teaching of the Gospels and 1 Cor 11, was to make a mockery of God means of grace to bloody and cleanse sinners so that they may worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth. It came across as incredibly bad taste and shameful. Having a toast after describing communion as a banquet makes a mockery of the crucifixion. “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Is this what stands for Spirit and Truth worship?
“Yes, It would be…because the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has very clear and distinct doctrinal and ecclesiastical guidelines.”
So why would they stick with the name Lutheran, when so many others have used it ofr ill?
I’ll skip the baloney –
The guy in the video MLD posted has nothing to do with me just as the Lutherans in my post have nothing to do with him. There is no reason for either of us to broad brush. He could be very specific about what and whom he finds problematic. Instead he indicts millions of other believers…all to a chorus of amens.
Probably because they hold to the actual creeds and confessions that marked out Lutheranism to begin with.
A better question would be why those who reject those documents insist on still calling themselves “Lutherans”.
Josh,
I think the point is that in broader evangelicalism you never know what you’re going to get and the doctrine and practices are going to be set by whoever is in charge of that local assembly.
Thus, while it be be orthodox, it may also be nuts.
Absolutely, and that is why it is not a good descriptor for our common boogeyman. We very well may be (actually, we are) smearing millions of good, orthodox believers. Lets be more precise with our language.
Josh – but you keep coming back to Lutherans – and I am not saying anything about SBC. But you seem to be protecting your alliance in some umbrella organization called evangelicals.
I think today in America evangelicals can be labeled – “do your own thing.”
And the same within Lutheranism, as I have demonstrated.
Why do you have to hold on to the broad brush when you know your critiques aren’t true for the majority of people you are condemning?
Why not just say – This guy, and all who agree with him, are wrong?
There are some complete loonies in the Orthodox world who are not connected with mainline Orthodoxy and they have plenty of videos on YouTube and I am just waiting for the day when someone here discovers them (one in particular) and broad-brushes all Orthodoxy based on his videos.
Every group has some out lyers who don’t represent the core beliefs or practices of a group.
Xenia, exactly. No need to condemn them all. That’s a straw man. Stick to the issues.
Josh,
I think a better analogy between confessional Lutherans, such as LCMS, and ELCA (which also use “Evangelical”) would be SBA and the American Baptist Churches USA. I’m not trying to equate the American Baptists with the ELCA, but just to show that they use the name Baptist, while differing greatly on some important doctrinal issues with the SBA.
Ok – keep your boogey-man. Millions of orthodox brothers will find it offensive.
Josh,
majority of people you are condemning
I have not condemned anyone. I only pointed out that what I have been teasing about has now come to fruition.
Go back and read my initial post. Anything else has been in response to comments or questions.
Here’s the question…or one of them.
In Orthodoxy and the LCMS it is easy to identify an outlier.
How does one identify the same in broader evangelicalism?
At one point, the church MLD “featured” was by far the largest in the valley here…
Just own it man. Evangelical has been your go to enemy for as long as I’ve been here. I shouldn’t have to scroll up a few posts just to start re-posting everything you’ve already posted. You lump evangelicals together constantly, and never in a positive light. Don’t back down now.
My only experience with the American Baptist Churches is their yearly “Streets of Bethlehem” production in our area. They convert their back parking lot into Bethlehem and in the past have they have had real lions, camels, and sheep on scene. You go past the “Herod” scene and he’s there with the real lion. You move on and get to sample Judean-type arts and crafts. Then an actress playing Mary comes through the crowd on a real donkey (right past me!) and I always burst into tears. This is a wonderful production but it is marred (just a little) by an overt political message about oppressive governments. And the hand outs emphasize this message. But still, I love it and the kids don’t notice the political message.
“How does one identify the same in broader evangelicalism?”
You don’t, which is why is not a useful descriptor.
outlier.<—- So that's how you spell it.
😉
Josh –
Well I would not consider them enemies — theological foils yes, but enemies no.
So, what is the proper evangelical way to do communion?
There is not one. Which is why you don’t poop on the whole group.
Nobody understands this?!?!?
Josh,
Can one make any sort of statement about evangelicals as a group?
“Nothing matters in todays evangelical service – there are no boundaries – no rules… but the people feel good doing their own thing and God weeps.”
MLD’s quote.
Now, are you confident that all of these Christians are making God weep? Or is there one goof in a video, that doesn’t speak for the rest listed below?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Evangelical_denominations_in_North_America
I understand it.
That’s why I suggested that a good description of an Evangelical or and Evangelical church would be holding to a unique view of the Scriptures: some form of sola Scriptura + some definition of scriptural inerrancy + some version of soul competency.
This can be for anyone – So what is an evangelical?
I know what the SBC is and I can look in the Baptist Faith and Message to zero in on a couple of items of interest. But who the heck are these evangelicals that SBC, CC, all forms of Pentecostals, the Calvinists like John MacArthur and so many others – just what is their belief system or at least their Code of Honor?
Something bro – give me something.
Or is it as Xenia suggested above – a “we are more serious Christians than you guys” club. Can you tell me one thing, that if you do not ascribe to it you cannot be an evangelical.
“Can one make any sort of statement about evangelicals as a group?”
I’m not sure. You used to be able to make 4 blanket statements about evangelicals, but now even those basics are stretched. What statement would you make about evangelicals as a group that you think would be accurate?
Authority of Scripture
Personal Born again experience
Importance of evangelism
Salvation by grace through faith
Those are the four markers, right? I’m not sure all who claim evangelicalism even hold to that anymore.
MLD – the four I listed above are the accepted definition of evangelical. Even within those four there is plenty of wiggle room.
“You used to be able to make 4 blanket statements about evangelicals, but now even those basics are stretched.”
That’s kind of the point I see in MLD’s posts.
I think three of your four would apply…and in some places four of four.
Evangelism seems to be losing its place…
I would add political conservatism to the list if the sociologists and pollsters are correct.
Worship in “Spirit and in Truth” does not mean that (1) God is no longer Holy, (2) Humans are no longer unclean, or (3) that Jesus’ atoning sacrifice for us is available outside His designated means of grace.
——————————————-
Jean, surely I don’t actually have to post to defend myself on points one and two or most of point three…though “designated means of grace” is certainly open for interpretation as has been noted since the Reformation.
I responded to your theological point about 1 Kings which, I would argue was in great error.
I also have already gone on record as disapproving of Ben in this tiny clip, while greatly approving of him as a brother in Christ and this clip not indicative of his heart towards our Lord.
I would add political conservatism to the list if the sociologists and pollsters are correct.
—————————————————
Do that and you also have to add “white” as I noted above.
Josh – I can ascribe to all four and yet not identify with American Evangelicalism. I think it has morphed into more than that.
Again, that is why it is a poor descriptor. Nobody identifies with the American Evagelism you speak of.
OK, I will amend my comment. Communion memorialists have now broken new ground as to the meaning a practice of the Lord’s Supper.
Steve,
This is a bit of a tangent, but you stated in your #79 that I greatly erred. Thus, I would like to briefly respond and perhaps clarify my point, so that hopefully we can both agree.
You mentioned the calf worship in the north after the kingdom split.
“After seeking advice, the king made two golden calves. He said to the people, ‘It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'”
While I would agree with you that this is a violation of the 10 commandments against graven images and idolatry, what I believe Jeroboam was doing was giving the Northerners two places to worship Yahweh (“who brought you up out of Egypt”) as an alternative to the Temple in Jerusalem. This is a recapitulation of what Aaron did in the wilderness with his golden calf. In other cases in Kings (with Solomon for example), the Jews did actually worship gods of their neighbors (such as Chemosh), but in the particular case of Jeroboam and his calves, I believe he was instituting an unauthorized form of Yahweh worship.
Jean – I do see where you are coming from. The one particular king, Jeroboam, is described by the prophet in 1 Kings 14:9 as making other gods and molding images. Sounds like idolatry to me from God’s point of view. You can disagree if you see it otherwise.
More specifically though, your original post spoke of all the “evil kings” and certainly when looked at as a whole their issue was as I wrote, false gods, not the True God in a wrong manner. That is largely why God brought His judgement on first the North, and later the South.
“Communion memorialists” – Good grief.
First you post a term that may or may not include. Then you make sure to narrow it down so that it definitely includes me.
I’m done.
Josh – unpuker
i think that the “outside” world decided that it wasn’t nice to refer to my kind as White Anglo Saxon Protestants anymore and so, the new label is evangelical… it sounds so religious and so… nice
“Can one make any sort of statement about evangelicals as a group?”
Without painting with too broad a brush, the following are common attributes of a large percentage of self-identifying evangelicals in the U.S.:
(1) Authority of Scripture using Solo Scriptura (as contrasted with Sola Scirptura).
(2) Belief in the free will of man.
(3) Belief in an eschatology that requires allegiance to the modern political state of Israel.
(4) Belief in the application of modern corporate management and leadership principles to the governance of the church.
Ah, good. I see that Jean is applying stereotypes that don’t even fit half of the people he is speaking about.
That’s great. It’s not really. It’s actually mind-boggling.
Josh,
“Stereo type” implies I’m saying bad things about this group. I believe this group would be proud to be associated with these characteristics. Please note that in my #89, I wrote about a large percentage, not all.
Which one(s) do you think does not fit?
# 2 – certainly does not fit ANY reformed evangelicals, of which there are millions. They would be offended by the charge.
# 3 – Are in the minority among evangelicals, though they may be the loudest.
#4 – This basically applies to a few (in comparison) mega-churches. IT doesn’t apply to roughly 90 % of evangelicals.
#1 – There is no way to take that, other than derogative.
Evangelicals is really a throw away term used even by evangelicals.
I look at evangelicals kind of like a trade union (and there is the National Association of Evangelicals who had their hayday back when Ted Haggard was their leader) – just a bunch of people, who are not even like minded, but joined together – I think (my opinion) to not be like “those guys”
I was reading this article on Karl Barth (one of those guys) – but look at the title of the article.
“How should evangelicals look at Karl Barth?” So who is this addressed to?
http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2016/02/22/what-should-evangelicals-make-of-karl-barth/
” just a bunch of people, who are not even like minded, but joined together”
Pretty much. But you’ve already agreed you used the wrong term. You should have said memorialists (like myself) make God weep. Still wrong, but at least it is more precise.
As far as who the Gospel Coalition is writing to, I would guess people who fit those four criteria in my #76, including you.
Clearly, the Gospel Coalition (all reformed) don’t hold to Jean’s stereotypes.
Josh, your four were pretty spot on from yesterday.
Jean, you realize that when you write (3) Belief in an eschatology that requires allegiance to the modern political state of Israel. you are not even remotely representing dispensational theology accurately much less as Josh noted the non-dispensational evangelicals out there….
Requires allegiance to the modern political state of Israel???
That is lunacy.
Now I am sure MLD will step in with a John Hagee quote or something else that MLD has been repeating and I have been refuting the last several years here at PhxP
Well remember, whenever we speak of “them” we are generalizing a vast majority of that group and because someone yells “Not I” that does not diminish the claim against the group at all.
If I say CC teaches such and such and Steve jumps in and says “I don’t teach that.” does not at all mean that I need to withdraw my statement.
Otherwise, all of Michael’s articles would be null and void especially when he wrings his hands how Christians act in political campaigns.
So let’s cut the crap about “well not all do. Hey, the truth is that category does. Just listen to them.
And to dispel Josh’s top 4 list – how about this. I can ascribe to all 4 boldly and I am not an evangelical. So what are you going to do with that?
“Requires allegiance to the modern political state of Israel???”
Well there is no other entity nor will there be – so the only reasonable assumption is that the requirement goes to that little strip of land in the Middle East.
Here is the crazy part of evangelical churches – especially when I say that they have no rules, no borders. Back to Applegate – just the week before Ben Couson’s toast to Jesus moment, his dad preached and ended with communion. You can watch here and start at 1:25:00.
No he is an evangelical – a memorialist – so what are we to believe. He ropes of the table to exclude non believers – he explains the communion – he even calls the bread the real body and the blood the real blood and he spends about 10 min on the whole thing.
http://www.applegatefellowship.org/teachingsplay.asp?teaching=FS-2016-02-14&teacher=fullservices
So which is it. Wow, if I went to that church those 2 weeks I would be thoroughly confuses….. and that it in the same church.
Where are the boundaries? What would I see if I looked in on Andy Stanley’s Church?
MLD doubles down, in spite of all facts to the contrary.
Yes, by definition LCMS is an evangelical denomination. Your protests are just saying “Thank God I am not like those other guys”. I too don’t call myself evangelical, but SBC is an evangelical denomination.
I don’t know why you want to smear a larger group so bad. Why not just point the finger at the one guy or one church that it actually applies to? Crazy.
“Where are the boundaries? ”
You just don’t get it. You are talking about a very large, loosely affiliated group. Only a few, as mentioned, things in common. To get boundaries you’d have to go to a smaller level, like particular denominations, and maybe even some divisions within those.
That’s like I can post so much heresy from “Lutherans”. You can say it doesn’t apply. I’m not that kind of Lutheran. Which is true, so it would be unfair for me to lump you in with all the other Lutherans in the world.
Evangelical is just a bigger umbrella term, and there isn’t much that you can say that will be true of all of them. So be more specific. You are talking about Applegate fellowship, and I agree with you. They need to figure out what they believe and how that is going to be carried out in there services. That probably doesn’t apply to Steve’s church, and certainly not my church.
“evangelical – a memorialist ”
Ahh, there is your error. The two are not synonymous. Some evangelicals do in fact hold to sacramental views of communion.
Josh – you totally miss the point. Lutherans of all strips are different denominations just as the SBC is a different Baptist denomination from the American Baptists etc. There are differences.
I am looking at your larger affiliation as you call if. What is that affiliation and does it supersede you denominational affiliation.
When someone goes to the NAE conventions – it is for what purpose? To discuss your 4 points of commonality?
Josh,
In my list from #89, you brought up item #2 first, so we can start there. The majority of evangelicals I’ve encountered, read or otherwise heard on the topic of salvation, would agree with this “How to Become a Christian” page from the SBC website:
“Are you ready to accept the gift of eternal life that Jesus is offering you right now? Let’s review what this commitment involves:
I acknowledge I am a sinner in need of a Savior – this is to repent or turn away from sin
I believe in my heart that God raised Jesus from the dead – this is to trust that Jesus paid the full penalty for my sins
I confess Jesus as my Lord and my God – this is to surrender control of my life to Jesus
I receive Jesus as my Savior forever – this is to accept that God has done for me and in me what He promised
If it is your sincere desire to receive Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Savior, then talk to God from your heart:
Here’s a Suggested Prayer:
“Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and I do not deserve eternal life. But, I believe You died and rose from the grave to make me a new creation and to prepare me to dwell in your presence forever. Jesus, come into my life, take control of my life, forgive my sins and save me. I am now placing my trust in You alone for my salvation and I accept your free gift of eternal life.”
If you have trusted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, please let us know. We want to rejoice in what God has done in your life and help you to grow spiritually.”
Is this not the exercise of free will?
The SBC does not have a standard statement on election / free will. If you look at articles 4 and 5 of the BFM, you will see they are purposely broad enough to include both views.
While I would agree with you that the majority of SB’s are more on the free will side, the reformed numbers in the SBC have grown exponentially in the last 20 years, reaching into the millions probably.
http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp
Jean, to get a view of Evangelicals that do not hold to the free will position, read anything from The Gospel Coalition.
“What is that affiliation and does it supersede you denominational affiliation.”
Of course not. It is a larger, looser descriptor, which includes all the baptist denominations, along with hundreds of others.
It’s like saying Californians are a specific group. Then I can enlarge that and say people from the west coast. A step bigger we can say Americans…keep going until we encompass all humans.
Each step we take away from the smallest group is going to have to be broader and less specific to be true. Evangelical is a broad, non-specific grouping.
As far as NAE meetings…no clue. Never been.
If I say CC teaches such and such and Steve jumps in and says “I don’t teach that.” does not at all mean that I need to withdraw my statement.
——————————————
Yes it DOES mean you need to withdraw. Or more properly, you need to specify “Pastor X at Calvary Chapel of YZ teaches this….
Because you know full well that there is no monolithic teaching that applies to all CCs with the slimmest of exceptions (beyond essentials like the deity of Christ that all Christian churches)
Others reading DON’T know that MLD. So you are bearing a false witness when you speak of us as a denomination with some codified statement of faith. Even the CCA website has almost no doctrine but rather is about philosophy of ministry that affiliates us.
Half of Chuck Smith’s own church (and teachers/pastors there) had different views on eternal security than Chuck did. That is in the SAME church as the founder!
On Saturday I am going to have a session on what we believe as a church, with the emphasis being an explanation of where we differ from other Christian churches (like the Lutherans for example) and in doing so I imagine I will have many opportunities to express what we believe differently than even other Calvary Chapels…
So yeah, when you simply say “Calvary Chapel teaches” you are most likely then going to be saying a false statement as it would apply to many….if you care. Most don’t who say similar things around here….
Josh, your response to #3 regarding eschatology and allegiance to the political state of Israel: “# 3 – Are in the minority among evangelicals, though they may be the loudest.”
Liberty University claims to be the world’s largest Christian University and considers itself evangelical. Here is what it’s website says about Israel in an article from last week:
“In Friday’s Convocation, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer spoke to Liberty University students about the challenges the Jewish nation has faced throughout history and thanked the university for being ‘the most pro-Israel place in the United States of America.'”
http://www.liberty.edu/news/index.cfm?MID=184041
Jean, assuming every single student, both on campus and online agrees with that statement…
You have just found a grand total of 81,000 who fit your statement.
Steve,
using your logic you could never say Mormons do not believe in the Trinity — because many Mormons do – they just don’t realize that it is aberrant to the majority teaching. These would be folks who came out of a good CC, SBC, LCMS background who converted to Mormonism for say the social reasons or whatever.
So now as you say, you could say only, “well, Joe my Mormon plumber doesn’t believe in the Trinity.” — and not be able to make a statement about Mormonism as an organization.
So Jean, when you say Evangelical, do you really mean to say “those associated with a very large, fundamentalist college”?
Because, again, I am in no way associated with Liberty.
Hey, watch out on that Liberty U bashing – that’s my alma mater. Extension class 1985 😉
I’m fine with Liberty, but they are an independant baptist college. Most don’t agree with them. I would assume most of their students don’t agree.
Mormon’s have an easily found set of standard doctrines. CC does not. Evangelical does not.
SBC does.
“….. So you are bearing a false witness…..”
discussions are good and much understanding between followers of Christ is gained here on the PhxP … that said, i grabbed the quote above without reference to the context because it concerns me that, in the zeal of allegiance and promotion of “my” choice of doctrine or tradition, i may use, either for dramatic affect or from a moment of arrogance, words that are an offense to God – an offense because my words simply are either not true or misapplied…
just sayin…
BTW what is the definition of ‘scirptura?’
Josh, let me begin right off the bat by saying that I, like others, was trying to express some evangelical “distinctives” for a large percentage of self-identifying evangelicals, based on my experience of them in person and in all manner of media.
When you say “fundamentalist college” that’s a red flag to me, because if their claim is true that they are the world’s largest Christian University, then what does that say about fundamentalism in the U.S. evangelical community. Even I did not use that descriptor, which is a serious one.
But the more I learn about you and your ministry, the more I am finding common ground with you.
They are a fundamentalist school, they were started by Jerry Falwell. Independent Baptist. Now, I think they’ve loosened up over time, so the fundy label might not fit any more. 20 years ago when I had friends go there guys had to wear ties, no rock music on campus, etc…
But the deal about how many students they have…they have a pretty large student body on campus. 15,000 or so? They basically accept anyone who will pay online, and from what I’ve heard, they have 70,000 or so online. Those people do not likely agree with Liberty on much. They are people wanting a degree, and Liberty is making that as easy as possible.
If you want to look at the schools that are shaping the larger evangelical mindset, look at Dallas Theological Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and the four biggest SBC institutions. (Southeastern, Southwestern, Southern, and New Orleans.) Those schools are the ones who are actually influencing evangelical thought right now.
Regarding solo vs. sola scriptura, I am being more anecdotal with this one. One can perceive the problem of solo scriptura from both what a church says about its use of Scripture and how it actually uses Scripture.
If you visit 10 different CCs randomly in say 10 different states and ask each pastor for his church’s basic statement of beliefs, you can expect substantial variations, because as Steve previously wrote: ” there is no monolithic teaching that applies to all CCs with the slimmest of exceptions (beyond essentials like the deity of Christ that all Christian churches)”
Why is this? Is it because the Holy Spirit is giving each pastor a different meaning? Is it because each pastor uses a different commentary for his theological research? But, in any event, when he preaches, he will say “the Bible says this about such and such”. God forbid he just gives the congregation several options to choose from. What do you then find? Church A is Arminian; Church B is Divine Monergism; Church C is a-millennial; Church D is pre-millennial; Church E is OSAS; Church F a Christian can apostate; etc.
http://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/trevinwax/2016/02/23/evangelicals-the-voting-booth-and-the-impact-of-d-c-discipleship/?platform=hootsuite
Perhaps the terms have changed meaning. I know when I was with CC and SBC in the 80s and my time spent associated with Liberty U – evangelical had one common meaning – “we are not RCC EO or Lutheran (or anyone else who wears a robe to preach in.) – and I believed it on face value. Now, the Fundamentalist of the early 20th century at least have a 4 volume set you could read to understand who they are.
Today, I guess it is describe the 4 items suggested by Josh. Puts a new meaning to napkin theology.
Jean,
“Church C is a-millennial”
You ain’t gonna find that one in CC 😉 Rapture theology 100% (perhaps in need to say 99.99% so I don’t get accused of lumping them altogether.)
If you visit 10 different CCs randomly in say 10 different states and ask each pastor for his church’s basic statement of beliefs, you can expect substantial variations, because as Steve previously wrote: ” there is no monolithic teaching that applies to all CCs with the slimmest of exceptions (beyond essentials like the deity of Christ that all Christian churches)”
———————————————————————–
No Jean. What you will find is a simple statement of faith that probably matches a statement of faith in every Christian church.
What MLD does when he says “CC teaches..” is not deal with some key point in a statement of faith.
Now, as far as 10 different churches teaching 10 different things…again, NO, because on most issues there are not 10 different sides. But if you speak of eternal security, or the baptism of the Spirit, or even dispensationalism in general you will get a divide into 2 (or maybe 3) camps.
And all the more if you ask about an interpretation on a given verse – there is no official teaching.
If you guys would be willing to be taught by someone who actually is a part of the group, to grow in your understanding, rather than assume and lecture with assurance on things you don’t know…it might be a little more Christ honoring.
Michael’s link is worth reading. The author has the belief that many Christians who support Trump do not regularly attend church. Give some thought to the significance of this, if it is actually true.
Now…if Christian doctrine begins and ends with the rapture, then you guys can claim victory that you are right and I am wrong and all CCs teach the same thing doctrinally,
But note, it would be YOU, not CC as a whole, making that emphasis.
I do not argue that Chuck had a huge emphasis on the rapture, and I do not argue that a premill, pretrib theology is something CCs have in common. But of course, if MLD ever wrote “CCs teach a pretrib rapture” I would never take issue with such a statement either.
But it is what he (and others) DO write, that are wrong stereotypes, that requires a reply
Xenia, this is a repeat of four years ago. Christians who voted for Romney did not vote FOR the Mormon, as if to endorse Morminism. But those who did not basically did not because of the Mormonism.
Likewise, Cruz is showing himself to be a lying sleazy guy, Rubio has one foot on each side of the reformation in his beliefs and nobody is deluded in thinking Trump is some devout follower of Christ. So whoever one picks they are not picking a person because of their Christianity
Steve,
“If you guys would be willing to be taught by someone who actually is a part of the group,”
A bit condescending – how do you think this whole conversation began? Because I do take the time to be taught by someone who is actually part of the group.
In this case I went to the CC Appelgate teachings. I probably listen to more CC and evangelical types than you do.
Point me to the CC guy you would like me to listen to (besides yourself) and I will go “be taught”
Not taught in the Bible, MLD (obviously) but taught about CC’s monolithic and nonmonolithic beliefs…if you listen to me, you will hear me. I will agree with lots of guys and disagree with several as well, within CC.
A few years ago I had on occasion someone come up to me and say “(Insert big CC guy on the radio here) taught that differently” to which I would say, Well, I would disagree with big CC guy on the radio, as I explained why.
The last thing I want CC to be is simply a bunch of pastors who repeat what Rabbi Smith, or Rabbi Courson teach….and I would say we are not such a group. That may cringe to anyone who calls himself a disciple of a certain man like you do, and maybe it is dangerous in a wild, wild west sort of way…but I want to encourage people to STUDY (that is the key qualifier) and then teach their convictions. Not parrot me
Xenia – a final point. If you look at the last exit polls for Presidential elections, it did not matter whether the GOP ran a likeminded evangelical like Bush, an evangelical hater like McCain, or a wolf like Romney, in each election the people who go to church regularly voted for the Republican by a very wide margin and the ones who answered rarely/never voted for the Democrat by a wide margin.
The margins would have been wider if not for the black vote which has a large portion with regular church attendance and also votes 90-95% for the Democrat, no matter who they are (not just Obama)
My point is that the ideology of the party influences this sort of repeated result over the course of two decades of elections. Even some church-going Democrats have gone on record in the past bemoaning the fact that the one thing there party seems most committed to is the killing of babies. As we the homosexual, transgender activism and the Islamic-PC madness which also comes almost wholly from the left, I do not expect those numbers to change much this election…no matter who the Republican nominee might be.
Others mileage may vary but just pointing to the stats which are Political Science 101.
Maybe this year’s convention at least will not have the Dems voting God out of the party platform like 2012 only to embarrasingly have to voice-vote him back in in a questionable fashion.
2012 DNC – Ha! I forgot about that garbage.
So what is the deal with being CC if everything is up for grabs. I thought the affiliation was so CC peeps could move from one CC to another and get the same teaching. Now you are telling me the comfort comes in sitting in the pew and looking at the dove?
Let me giove you a couple of 🙂 🙂 🙂 with that one. 😉
Here is my point with the evangelicals and as I said earlier this morning it is just a throwaway term used even by evangelicals themselves — or they are just this odd group.
Why does the headline and the article address evangelicals – – why not just Christian voters — or are the rest of us the sane wing of Christianity?
Who knows, MLD? Just keep your boogeyman.
Josh, not everyone is in denial about this – even these evangelical writers are honest enough to point this out.
This guy could have written the article and stated “all Christians” or the Christian “voter” – but he didn’t.
I thought the affiliation was so CC peeps could move from one CC to another and get the same teaching.
—————————————
Well, then you thought wrong. Now, are you willing to learn and accept it or are you going to insist because you went to one for a few years you know more than I do.
MLD – like I said yesterday, if you want to talk “evangelical” in political terms you must accept that they are all white. That is how the political pundits use the term and poll the term
Surely you do not think all evangelicals, theologically speaking, are white.
Fine. Keep the tar and feathers coming. Your points would make more sense if they were properly directing, but you seem hell-bent on including as many as possible in your insults. So Evangelical is probably the correct word for you to use.
Steve,
” Now, are you willing to learn and accept it or are you going to insist because you went to one for a few years you know more than I do.”
Nope – you won me over. I will no longer say CC teaches X,Y or Z.
You have confirmed my initial comments on this topic. There are no boundaries in your organization for teaching or practice.
(and I went to 3 CCs over a good 12 – 13 yr period.) 😉
” Authority of Scripture using Solo Scriptura (as contrasted with Sola Scirptura)”
so… ‘scirptura’ was referring to a typo that i missed? ? ?
Em,
“Scriptura” is Latin for Scripture. Scripture generally means those books of the Bible that your tradition considers as canon. Canon are those books which are considered authoritative as a source of dogma.
http://anglicanchurch.net/?%2Fmain%2Fpage%2F1183
The LCMS and confessional Anglicans in talks with one another.
“Rather than describe ACNA and LCMS–LCC as sister churches, we should acknowledge each other as ecclesial 1st cousins, closely related indeed, but not yet partaking publicly of the same Lord’s Table.”
This makes me happy…
#142, makes me happy too.
Jean,
If there’s any group I identify with, it’s confessional Anglicans.
There are no boundaries in your organization for teaching or practice.
———————————
Great conclusion. Yep. No boundaries whatsoever. That’s been my point.
I think we are done on this one…
thank you, Jean … i’m aware of that… my inquiry referenced your #89 – scirptura – SCIRPTURA (sorry to use caps) was that, not a term, but someone’s typo?
“(1) Authority of Scripture using Solo Scriptura (as contrasted with Sola Scirptura).”
Em, yes, typo.
“Great conclusion. Yep. No boundaries whatsoever. That’s been my point.”
OK, boundaries are there – but unidentifiable
I don’t deny that you have boundaries in both teaching and practice – but there are none in CC. If there were, then I could say CC teaches a,b,c. – – but you won’t allow that – so what other conclusion can I come to?.
It took me all the way to Josh’s #147 to see that typo. My eyes are not what they used to be. Please don’t be offended if typos from me become more frequent, although I will try to be careful.
MLD – he already gave you the Deity of Christ.
http://calvarychapelassociation.com/general-information/statement-of-faith/
Boundaries.
You will note that all Christian churches will agree on some of these.
Some churches might challenge the wording in a couple of them…but basically agree (sin and salvation related)
And some churches will disagree with a few of these, which nonetheless will be in agreement with many other churches (the baptism, communion, endtimes, spirit gifts related)
http://calvarychapelassociation.com/general-information/philosophy/
Boundaries.
These are more subjective but give a fairly decent picture of the general “vibe” of worshipping in a CC, no matter where you might be. With various degrees of narrowness or broadness…
Now, what MLD or others often do is take a specific church experience (like a counseling advice session) or a quick snippet of a lengthy Bible message, or (as the example above with Courson and communion) and then say “Calvary Chapel teaches/supports/counsels/…..XYZ – throwing a couple thousand churches into one bigoted stereotyped slander.
Steve,
In paragraph 3 of the Statement of Faith, there is a pretty strong free will statement:
“Because Jesus died for the sins of the world the invitation to believe is open to all, and whoever desires may come unto Jesus for new life and the forgiveness of sins.”
Based on just this Statement, I don’t know whether CC would consider themselves semi-Pelagian or not, but I’m wondering what you teach at your CC.
So first you tell me that you are big at disagreeing with what others teach, that the CC teaching apparatus is not a monolith – you seem to take glee when I realize that CC does not have a consistent teaching.
When I said “I thought the affiliation was so CC peeps could move from one CC to another and get the same teaching.” You gloated that now I understood – they don’t.
Now when I say (by your words not mine) that it is a free for all, that you cannot count on going from one CC to the other and have an expectation of consistence – now you want to show me your cards and start putting the fence around CC teaching?
Come on.
MLD…I’m not going to repeat myself just because you run in circles. I have spoken directly to context of your remarks and been very clear throughout. No gotcha games from you.
“Same teaching” when talking about churches that go through every verse of every book is NOT the same as some doctrinal boundaries within Christendom and specifically within the larger “evangelical” wing of Christendom.
Jean, I did not write their statement of faith and I would take issue with some of the words in a couple places too.
However, the example you cite is a good one as you would not get a consensus view on the “process” of salvation from CC pastors when it comes to the extent and definition of faith, the will and so forth and the interaction of it all.
Boundaries, to use MLD’s term, would be we all believe in salvation by grace through faith and not works. We also all believe one receives Christ personally as Savior.
Well, I will drop it here. I think it is the doctrinal / theological stuff that draws the boundaries on the exposition / teaching stuff.
#157 #158,
The main reason I became a Confessional Lutheran is because I wanted the peace of mind and assurance that comes from joining myself to the apostolic Christian faith. I found no comfort, assurance or peace from any of the new, innovative, independent, or progressive forms of Christianity that many today follow.
!?!?!?
THe Apostles named their faith after a guy who wouldn’t be born for another 1500 years?!?!?!
Josh,
That’s why it was called the Reformation! 🙂
I’m going out on a limb and guessing Xenia might disagree with Jean on #159
🙂
He has made a step in the right direction.
☺?