The Rise of Individualism in the Church: Both Liberal and Conservative

JB_Reformed Baptist · May 11, 2013

Angelina said:
Sounds like a pastoral care-team made up of elders and leaders of the Church. Their purpose would be for the general running of the Church and care of the Pastor and yes, they have no authority over other matters. Discipline is not given out on a grassroots Church level...nor is hiring and firing.

Depending on the seriousness of the situation, the Pastor would be able to bring any spiritual matter of concern or grievances before a regional overseer, [if they have one] appointed by or with the general approval of the executive council [board] for consideration. The Pastor however, is accountable to the executive council or board [higher level] on all matters pertaining to the Church. He may have also found that the Church finances are not his to administer as he chooses as well...

The Church you are referring to may not run the same way as other Pentecostal Churches so I'm unsure why the committee did not bring him before the "Executive" first before offering him the position.

Pentecostal Churches may seem unorthodox to some and even a little OTT but they are actually quite traditional in their structure, following along the lines of the Jethro principle of leadership.

The structure of the PC, doesn't sound to different than Presbyterian church hierarchy. In any case I prefer this type of accountability, as you said, it's closer to the original model. As the scriptures say 'everything should be done decently and in order' and I might add to the Glory of God...

HammerStone · May 11, 2013

Angelina (and JB_), I am not 100% certain, but there seems to be a difference in Pentecostalism that you're describing versus what is seen around here in the states. However, I know there are more moderate Pentecostal churches that I would be more comfortable at versus the run-in-the-aisles and shout stuff you often see around here.

I know the term Charismatic is used in the states. Many times it is used interchangeably for Pentecostalism, but I have also seen it used as an adjective for other denominations and my own opinion is that it seems to indicate a more moderate Pentecostal stance. (IE: Charismatics are more aware of the Holy Spirit part of the trinity in some senses.) There are even some denominations that come to mind like some of the Churches of God where there is something like this being practiced.

In regards to the 1904 Welsh Revival - if memory serves me correctly the Welsh had the Calvinist Methodists (yes, it's a real term and denomination) which might explain the more Presbyterian style of church government. There was possibly some influence, I suppose, though I think the timelines varied a bit.

I tend to agree with the Presbyterian style of government. It doesn't leave choices up to basically a single bishop, nor does it make the Baptist mistake of essentially placing the church itself in control. The latter is a an issue because a charismatic (as in personal charisma in preaching, versus the religious sense of the word) pastor might pull his congregation into error that the local body does not see.

rjp34652@yahoo.com · Jun 19, 2013

ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Christianity's essence is individuality; there is no such thing as corporate salvation.

These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 1 John 2:26-27

Wow!

I do agree with that statement.

The old testament is a clear example and history of corporate salvation. If you wanted to be saved in those days, you had to be a Hebrew/Jew.

The old testamant changed all that. Salvation became personal on the cross.

The problem with today's Christians, however, is secularization. The gospel has become diluted with the rubbish of Madison Avenue, which treats everyone the same so as to maximize profits.

Everyone is not the same and everyone will not be saved unless they are born again - and that is an individual matter to contend with.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

Mungo · Jun 20, 2013

[email protected] said:
Wow!

I do agree with that statement.

The old testament is a clear example and history of corporate salvation. If you wanted to be saved in those days, you had to be a Hebrew/Jew.

The old testamant changed all that. Salvation became personal on the cross.

The problem with today's Christians, however, is secularization. The gospel has become diluted with the rubbish of Madison Avenue, which treats everyone the same so as to maximize profits.

Everyone is not the same and everyone will not be saved unless they are born again - and that is an individual matter to contend with.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

It didn't change at the cross. We still need to assemble and worship together.

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place (Acts 2:1)

And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (Acts 2:42)

And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their home (Acts 2:46)

Being born again is personal, but so was circumcision. Once in the body of Christ we need to remember we are a body not lots of disconnected cells.

HeRoseFromTheDead · Jun 20, 2013

Mungo said:
It didn't change at the cross. We still need to assemble and worship together.
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place (Acts 2:1)
And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers (Acts 2:42)
And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their home (Acts 2:46)
Being born again is personal, but so was circumcision. Once in the body of Christ we need to remember we are a body not lots of disconnected cells.

Good points. I didn't mean to imply that Christianity is only an individual pursuit. Inward growth and conquering of sin are entirely personal, but the functioning of each individual part can't help but be expressed to other parts of the body.

HammerStone · Jun 20, 2013

I'm reading a couple of books now that address this. One is by Scot McKnight and it's called The King Jesus Gospel. The main thesis thus far is that our Christianity is obsessed with the Soteriological - meaning that we are obsessed with the salvation part (winning souls, getting a decision for Christ, or whatever you will call it). I agree with this notion because a big question I see is "So what now?" We neglect, at least a bit, that the entire Bible is the gospel - back even unto the story of Israel.

In my own denomination, which is Southern Baptist, there is a large contigent of infighting over Calvinism, which is primarily concerned with how people are saved. (I realize Reformed Theology is much more, but a number of the trench battles are entirely soteriological.) While things have, thankfully, cooled down to a large degree, the battle lines are consistently drawn over how God saves people versus doing kingdom work to save more people. The implication being often that the other side is not properly saved, barely saved, or simply not saved enough.

This is why you've seen such a resurgence in disciple-making language.

The second book is The Moral Vision of the New Testament by Methodist scholar Richard B. Hays. Hays is not exactly a Conservative, but neither is he very progressive in his views. I look to him for solid scholarship that I might not always agree with, but respect as a man humbly seeking God from an academic perspective. Among his points is one more akin to the original intent of this thread.

Essentially, we tend to read things as an individual where early Christians would have read things corporately.

For instance, a famous passage from Romans:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies [plural] as a living sacrifice [singular], holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. - Romans 12:1-2 NIV

We read the above as I sacrifice my body for God in the manner that he has called me. In New Testament terms, this passage is actually focused on the idea that the corporate body presents itself as a unified living sacrifice to God.

Thus, we have Galatians 3:28:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. - Galatians 3:28 NIV

If we get outside the individualist mindset, this verse makes much sense.

This is an area where I do respect my Catholic brethren like Mungo. We may disagree on the Pope and his role, but I very much admire that when you address a Catholic, they often respond as if you have addressed the church. I think we Protestants could take a page or two from the Catholic unity playbook, even amongst our own denominations. We also interepret the Catholic (collective) response as just an extension of blind following of the Pope, but it is more complicated than that. This misunderstanding often leaves a Protestant speaking in the singular voice against a Catholic collective voice.

Dodo_David · Jul 14, 2013

In 1 Corinthians 12:20-21, the Apostle Paul writes the following:

As it is, there are many parts, but one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”

So, absolute individualism is harmful to the mission of the universal Church.

Yet, if we say that the Bible alone is the final authority on orthodoxy, then we have a right and a responsibility to study the Bible to see if what a preacher says matches what the Bible says.

If we discover that the Bible doesn't support what a preacher says, then we are free to reject what the preacher says and to go along with what the Bible says.

Mungo · Jul 15, 2013

Dodo_David said:
In 1 Corinthians 12:20-21, the Apostle Paul writes the following:

So, absolute individualism is harmful to the mission of the universal Church.

Yet, if we say that the Bible alone is the final authority on orthodoxy, then we have a right and a responsibility to study the Bible to see if what a preacher says matches what the Bible says.

If we discover that the Bible doesn't support what a preacher says, then we are free to reject what the preacher says and to go along with what the Bible says.

There are two problems with that.

1. It's back to individualism. I (the individual) decide what, in my personal opinion, the correct interpretation of the bible is.

2. The Bible is not the final authority on orthodoxy. That doesn't match what the Bible says in my personal and indivual opinion.

Selene · Jul 15, 2013

Each person can have an impact or affect other members in the body of Christ. If one member in the body of Christ sins, his/her sin not only hurts the person but other members as well and can even lead others to stumble and fall into sin. The same can also be said if God makes a person holy. If one person is holy, that also can affect other members in the body of Christ, but in a much more positive way.

horsecamp · Jul 16, 2013

Jesus says IN THE BIBLE if you love me you will follow my teachings..

Jesus did not say-- IF YOU LOVE ME YOU CAN PICK and choose WHICH TEACHINGS OF MINE YOU WANT TO beleive..

He wants us to beleive all the bible.. ITS HIS WORD

Luther was accused correctly for having the bible for his pope .. WHAT A FINE AND PERFECT POPE TO HAVE..

Dodo_David · Jul 16, 2013

Mungo said:
There are two problems with that.

1. It's back to individualism. I (the individual) decide what, in my personal opinion, the correct interpretation of the bible is.

2. The Bible is not the final authority on orthodoxy. That doesn't match what the Bible says in my personal and indivual opinion.

If the Bible is not the final authority on orthodoxy, then what is? Humans are fallible.

Selene · Jul 17, 2013

Dodo_David said:
If the Bible is not the final authority on orthodoxy, then what is? Humans are fallible.

It was men who wrote the Holy Bible, and you believe the Holy Bible to be the infallible word of God. The infallible Holy Spirit uses fallible men to write infallibly. God has always used the weak and even the worst sinner to carry out His plan. He does not choose the strongest, the wisest, or the best of people. He has always chosen the weakest, the poorest, and even the worst sinners to carry out His will. That way people will know that it was the infallible God who works in and through fallible men.

JB_Reformed Baptist · Jul 17, 2013

Selene said:
It was men who wrote the Holy Bible, and you believe the Holy Bible to be the infallible word of God. The infallible Holy Spirit uses fallible men to write infallibly. God has always used the weak and even the worst sinner to carry out His plan. He does not choose the strongest, the wisest, or the best of people. He has always chosen the weakest, the poorest, and even the worst sinners to carry out His will. That way people will know that it was the infallible God who works in and through fallible men.

What a mishmash of logic. You state truth amongst facts and somehow twist it to mean something else. You really need to tidy it up and be careful with your premises and conclusions and the order you present it.

Selene · Jul 17, 2013

JB_ said:
What a mishmash of logic. You state truth amongst facts and somehow twist it to mean something else. You really need to tidy it up and be careful with your premises and conclusions and the order you present it.

How so? I certainly did not twist anything. It is true that God chooses the weak, the poorest, the handicap, and even the worst sinners to carry out His plans. Here are the facts.

1. Among all the people of the world, God chose Israel. Why? Because the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt......and slaves are the poorest of the poor. It was God who turned a group of slaves from Egypt into the strong nation of Israel.

2. God chose Abraham. Why Abraham? Because Abraham was a very old man. He was a man with no heirs and no land. Abraham and his wife were so old that they were incapable of having any children. God chose Abraham to be the "Father of many nations" and out of Sarah's dead womb, God made it alive to bear a child despite her old age. So, God gave heirs and land to a man who was too old to have any heirs and land.

3. God chose Moses to be the spokesman to Pharaoh and to His chosen people and to lead them out of slavery in Eygpt and into the desert. Why Moses? Because Moses had a speech impediment. In other words, Moses was handicap when speaking (See Exodus 4:10). Later, we find that Moses became a great spokesman despite his speech impediment and even without Aaron at his side (See Deuteronomy 31).

4. God chose David among his brothers. David was a shepherd boy with no military skills and no leadership skills to rule a country. And David who had no military skills was able to defeat Goliath, who was a giant soldier with military skills. God also turned this shepherd boy into a king.

5. God chose a woman instead of man to defeat Israel's last Canaanite enemy (See Judges 4).

6. Between Jacob and Esau, Jacob was the worst. He was a liar and a cheater. When he wanted his brother's birthright, Jacob would not give his hungry brother Esau any food until Esau sold him his birthright. Esau gave Jacob his birthright and Jacob gave him food. Some brother he turned out to be. If my brother was hungry, I would simply give him food and not turn it into a negotiation. Then Jacob tricked his blind father into pretending he was Esau so he could get his father's blessing. And Jacob was the one whom God chose.

7. St. Paul was a persecutor of Christians. He persecuted Christians, and this was the man God chose to become the Apostle of the Gentiles.

God always chooses the weak, the poorest, the most humblest, the handicap, and even the worst sinner to be His chosen ones so He could work in and through them. If God had chosen a very strong people instead of slaves, then how can anyone know that it was God who made them into a great nation? They can easily say that it was the strength of those people that made themselves into a great nation. We know that it was God who made the Hebrews into a great nation because a group of slaves would never be able to do it on their own.

God chose Moses because of his handicap to be a great spokesman. If God had chosen an eloquent speaker, then how can anyone know that it was actually God who was working in and through that person? They could easily say that the eloquent speaker did it all by himself.

God chose David with no military skills and with no leadership skills. If God had chosen someone with military and leadership skills instead of a shepherd boy, how can anyone know that it was actually God working in that person? We know that it was God who defeated Goliath because a shepherd boy could not do it on his own.

And so the infallible Holy Spirit uses fallible men to write the Holy Bible infallibly for it is the infallible word of God. The infallible Holy Spirit used the Apostles to speak the words of God infallibly to the Jews and Gentiles for with God all things are possible.

This Vale Of Tears · Jul 17, 2013

Selene said:
It was men who wrote the Holy Bible, and you believe the Holy Bible to be the infallible word of God. The infallible Holy Spirit uses fallible men to write infallibly. God has always used the weak and even the worst sinner to carry out His plan. He does not choose the strongest, the wisest, or the best of people. He has always chosen the weakest, the poorest, and even the worst sinners to carry out His will. That way people will know that it was the infallible God who works in and through fallible men.

^^^^ This.

Dodo_David · Jul 17, 2013

Among all the people of the world, God chose Israel. Why? Because the Hebrews were slaves in Egypt.

Uh, the Hebrews were God's chosen people before they even migrated to Egypt, because they were the descendants of Abraham.

Selene · Jul 17, 2013

Dodo_David said:
Uh, the Hebrews were God's chosen people before they even migrated to Egypt, because they were the descendants of Abraham.

Abraham had many sons, (See Genesis 25:1-6), but none of these sons were chosen by God.....not even Ishmael who was Abraham's first born. It was through Isaac's line that the Davidic Kingdom was to come. God made a covenant with Abraham and promised him that he would have many descendants. God kept His promise, but only ONE of Abraham's descendants became the chosen people of God. God did not make ALL of Abraham's descendants His chosen people.

Issac then had two sons, but God's chosen one was Jacob, who was a liar and a cheater. God did not choose Essau. So, although Essau was a Hebrew and son of Issac and a descendant of Abraham, Essau's descendants were not God's chosen people.

Jacob then had 12 sons. Of the 12, it was Joseph who was sold by his brothers into Egypt. Later, Joseph allowed his father Jacob and 11 other brothers to stay in Egypt. It was the descendants of Jacob that became God's chosen people.....and these descendants were slaves in Egypt.

Dodo_David · Jul 18, 2013

Selene said:
Abraham had many sons, (See Genesis 25:1-6), but none of these sons were chosen by God.....not even Ishmael who was Abraham's first born. It was through Isaac's line that the Davidic Kingdom was to come. God made a covenant with Abraham and promised him that he would have many descendants. God kept His promise, but only ONE of Abraham's descendants became the chosen people of God. God did not make ALL of Abraham's descendants His chosen people.

Issac then had two sons, but God's chosen one was Jacob, who was a liar and a cheater. God did not choose Essau. So, although Essau was a Hebrew and son of Issac and a descendant of Abraham, Essau's descendants were not God's chosen people.

Jacob then had 12 sons. Of the 12, it was Joseph who was sold by his brothers into Egypt. Later, Joseph allowed his father Jacob and 11 other brothers to stay in Egypt. It was the descendants of Jacob that became God's chosen people.....and these descendants were slaves in Egypt.

The claim being made is that God chose the descendants of Jacob (a.k.a. Israel) because they were slaves in Egypt, but God chose them before they even entered Egypt in order to escape a famine.

Selene · Jul 18, 2013

Dodo_David said:
The claim being made is that God chose the descendants of Jacob (a.k.a. Israel) because they were slaves in Egypt, but God chose them before they even entered Egypt in order to escape a famine

He chose them before they were even born. Israel is God's chosen people, and their story of salvation starts in Egypt where they became slaves. God chose slaves to be His chosen people, and He raised these group of slaves into the nation of Israel. Even the Passover started in Egypt. God's plan of salvation was revealed in Genesis 3. God used Moses to free His people of slavery from Egypt. The Holy Bible says that a prophet like Moses will be raised up. The prophet like Moses was Jesus. Just as Moses freed God's chosen people of slavery from Egypt......Jesus freed mankind of slavery from sin.

JB_Reformed Baptist · Jul 18, 2013

Selene said:
He chose them before they were even born. Israel is God's chosen people, and their story of salvation starts in Egypt where they became slaves. God chose slaves to be His chosen people, and He raised these group of slaves into the nation of Israel. Even the Passover started in Egypt. God's plan of salvation was revealed in Genesis 3. God used Moses to free His people of slavery from Egypt. The Holy Bible says that a prophet like Moses will be raised up. The prophet like Moses was Jesus. Just as Moses freed God's chosen people of slavery from Egypt......Jesus freed mankind of slavery from sin.

Tell me Selene.

"If a man says something in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear it, ...is he still wrong?"

The Rise of Individualism in the Church: Both Liberal and Conservative

Many are called but few are chosen.

Well-Known Member

Choir Loft

Well-Known Member

Not So Advanced Member

Well-Known Member

Melmacian in human guise

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Melmacian in human guise

New Member

Many are called but few are chosen.

New Member

Indian Papist

Melmacian in human guise

New Member

Melmacian in human guise

New Member

Many are called but few are chosen.

Similar threads