OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
ewq,ewq1938 said:
Would you please help me to understand what you mean by the difference between Christianity and Churchianity?
Can you critique your chosen theological system?
- Thread starter aspen
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Would you please help me to understand what you mean by the difference between Christianity and Churchianity?
Y'all, as someone who went down the whole "Christianity is not a religion, it's a reality" schtick (I even used it in my signature here), I really caution you as brothers and sisters in the Lord to not tread the same pathway!
At the end of the day, religion is simply the chosen term for how we, as humans, relate to God. It's used in the Bible for the same purpose. In James 1:26-27, the Bible effectively says religion (aka how you relate to God) is serving others in the name of God while keeping unstained by the world. So, we all have a way of relating to God, like it or not. It's how God built us. There's no way around that. I understand that words like religion and phrases like "organized religion" have all sorts of negative connotations and lack of trendiness, but this whole "hate religion" movement is a pox on the house of Christianity. If you make any claim whatsoever about having anything to do with God, you are practicing religion. I sinned in having this attitude and I repent of it. I urge you the same if you hold it in your hearts.
It's the same with something like an SoF. I'm not sure about you, but when I enter into a place (be it physical or virtual), I expect to know a little about it. I identify Walmart or the local grocery store by the sign on it. I know that if it spells out Walmart in blue letters, then it's a Walmart and will carry certain items. If I walk into a building with Belk on it, I know it's something else and carries a certain range of items.
I do the same with churches. In theory, Christianity should get you to a pretty specific place. In practice, lots of people love to run with their interpretations and call it Christianity after they select a few precious items from the a la carte menu. So, things like SoFs developed to provide a baseline understanding. I want people to get that Christianity Board is a generally traditionally-orthodox community of Christian believers, exclusive of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who are not Christians even though they claim to be. We have to draw that line in the sand. I do not want a new Christian coming on here and falling prey to heresy.
We try to be very generous in what we allow, but 10/10 times I have found that the people who hold to heresy or pet issues that they know run contra to Christianity will not let go of those issues. It becomes a wedge issue and a self-fulfilling prophecy as to why they cannot seem to get along with any Christian forum or member anywhere ever.
The reality is that we have to fence off and define our beliefs. If you say you're against SoFs, then you're simply declaring your own SoF against SoFs. You may call it something else, but by stating a belief against something...well, it's stating a belief.
With respect to the OP, I think a theological system should always be open to review. It's part of the reason I feel a tug between the Calvinist & Reformed camp versus the Arminian & Semi-Pelagian camp or some other topic. I have seen healing via prayer, and that has shifted my thoughts on that a bit. I view this as God semper reformanda'ing (always reforming) me. To me, this is the root of Protestantism to always look at what I am doing and what I believe to ensure that it falls in line with Holy Scripture.
That said, should one be open to the discovery of lack of divinity of Jesus? In theory I suppose you could say yes, but in praxis I find it quite difficult to leave open to doubt. It hearkens back to what the Apostle Paul said in that we really are poor SOBs (okay, maybe paraphrasing there) if Jesus was not risen from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:19). We have nothing to stand on if this is the case. So, I think one can let many issues stand or fall on merit, but I do think there is a core of the faith that should not be open to question, otherwise it's no longer faith. The epistemological considerations would result in tremendous upheavals of thought. I don't fear those things, but at that point it goes beyond just critiquing a system.
At the end of the day, religion is simply the chosen term for how we, as humans, relate to God. It's used in the Bible for the same purpose. In James 1:26-27, the Bible effectively says religion (aka how you relate to God) is serving others in the name of God while keeping unstained by the world. So, we all have a way of relating to God, like it or not. It's how God built us. There's no way around that. I understand that words like religion and phrases like "organized religion" have all sorts of negative connotations and lack of trendiness, but this whole "hate religion" movement is a pox on the house of Christianity. If you make any claim whatsoever about having anything to do with God, you are practicing religion. I sinned in having this attitude and I repent of it. I urge you the same if you hold it in your hearts.
It's the same with something like an SoF. I'm not sure about you, but when I enter into a place (be it physical or virtual), I expect to know a little about it. I identify Walmart or the local grocery store by the sign on it. I know that if it spells out Walmart in blue letters, then it's a Walmart and will carry certain items. If I walk into a building with Belk on it, I know it's something else and carries a certain range of items.
I do the same with churches. In theory, Christianity should get you to a pretty specific place. In practice, lots of people love to run with their interpretations and call it Christianity after they select a few precious items from the a la carte menu. So, things like SoFs developed to provide a baseline understanding. I want people to get that Christianity Board is a generally traditionally-orthodox community of Christian believers, exclusive of Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons who are not Christians even though they claim to be. We have to draw that line in the sand. I do not want a new Christian coming on here and falling prey to heresy.
We try to be very generous in what we allow, but 10/10 times I have found that the people who hold to heresy or pet issues that they know run contra to Christianity will not let go of those issues. It becomes a wedge issue and a self-fulfilling prophecy as to why they cannot seem to get along with any Christian forum or member anywhere ever.
The reality is that we have to fence off and define our beliefs. If you say you're against SoFs, then you're simply declaring your own SoF against SoFs. You may call it something else, but by stating a belief against something...well, it's stating a belief.
With respect to the OP, I think a theological system should always be open to review. It's part of the reason I feel a tug between the Calvinist & Reformed camp versus the Arminian & Semi-Pelagian camp or some other topic. I have seen healing via prayer, and that has shifted my thoughts on that a bit. I view this as God semper reformanda'ing (always reforming) me. To me, this is the root of Protestantism to always look at what I am doing and what I believe to ensure that it falls in line with Holy Scripture.
That said, should one be open to the discovery of lack of divinity of Jesus? In theory I suppose you could say yes, but in praxis I find it quite difficult to leave open to doubt. It hearkens back to what the Apostle Paul said in that we really are poor SOBs (okay, maybe paraphrasing there) if Jesus was not risen from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:19). We have nothing to stand on if this is the case. So, I think one can let many issues stand or fall on merit, but I do think there is a core of the faith that should not be open to question, otherwise it's no longer faith. The epistemological considerations would result in tremendous upheavals of thought. I don't fear those things, but at that point it goes beyond just critiquing a system.
You know what? Any system of belief that does not transform your heart into a lover of God and humanity leads to damnation. It could be totally true, but it can still damn you. It is just like higher education, if it does not transform you into a life long learner, it is a waste of time and money and as dammitable as pew sitting. The Pharisees were dead right.
Being able to see the weaknesses of your belief system helps in several ways:
1. It helps you realize that you are not your religion
2. Everyone has a religion they hold to be true.
3. All religions are incomplete; they are human attempts to capture God in a snapshot and relate to Him.
Once again, I agree with Hammerstone; however, I am not suggesting that we root out the errors in our beliefs systems in order to improve them so that we can be more right. I am suggesting that we look at the limitations of our religious beliefs in order to recognize how incomplete they are in describing an infinite God. Only after recognizing our own inadequate belief can we recognize and empathize with our neighbor's inadequate beliefs.
This thread is not an attempt to compare one religious belief system against another - it is an attempt to recognize that we are are dealing with incomplete information. Knowing doesn't save us, transformation alone is our salvation.
George MacDonald pointed out in his story "Lilith" that knowing the name of something or someone is not the same as understanding or knowing who they are. This is true when applied with or attempts to name/know the smallest unit of light - scientists have applied a label, but they still do not understand if it is a particle or a wave - it is an inadequate attempt to understand a basic element of nature.
Religion has labelled God as Triune. Yep - it is a foundational belief within Christianity, but it really says nothing about God. You cannot really know an infinite being through language, which is what religion is, all you can do is know God through experience, that is what the Christian Mystics have been saying for centuries. Yet, they are dismissed by many Christian religious leaders today because their doctrine, which goes beyond language and definition is too scary and too speculative. They are dismissed for their experience - just like Jesus. Jesus was murdered because He was a verb, not a noun - the Word made Flesh.
Being able to see the weaknesses of your belief system helps in several ways:
1. It helps you realize that you are not your religion
2. Everyone has a religion they hold to be true.
3. All religions are incomplete; they are human attempts to capture God in a snapshot and relate to Him.
Once again, I agree with Hammerstone; however, I am not suggesting that we root out the errors in our beliefs systems in order to improve them so that we can be more right. I am suggesting that we look at the limitations of our religious beliefs in order to recognize how incomplete they are in describing an infinite God. Only after recognizing our own inadequate belief can we recognize and empathize with our neighbor's inadequate beliefs.
This thread is not an attempt to compare one religious belief system against another - it is an attempt to recognize that we are are dealing with incomplete information. Knowing doesn't save us, transformation alone is our salvation.
George MacDonald pointed out in his story "Lilith" that knowing the name of something or someone is not the same as understanding or knowing who they are. This is true when applied with or attempts to name/know the smallest unit of light - scientists have applied a label, but they still do not understand if it is a particle or a wave - it is an inadequate attempt to understand a basic element of nature.
Religion has labelled God as Triune. Yep - it is a foundational belief within Christianity, but it really says nothing about God. You cannot really know an infinite being through language, which is what religion is, all you can do is know God through experience, that is what the Christian Mystics have been saying for centuries. Yet, they are dismissed by many Christian religious leaders today because their doctrine, which goes beyond language and definition is too scary and too speculative. They are dismissed for their experience - just like Jesus. Jesus was murdered because He was a verb, not a noun - the Word made Flesh.
He threatened the establishment. He lived what He taught. We are saying that same thing, you are just feeling threatened by my post.ewq1938 said:
Aspen, I think you raise some valid points in that Christianity often loses its mystique/mystical implications. This is why Pentecostalism and Charismatic Christianity is having such an effect upon large portions of the world, both here in the states and abroad because it offers some degree of mysticism.
I think what you're kinda beating around the bush on (and not in a negative way) is that faith must be approached in humility. I think this is absolutely why Jesus said that we must come as children in Matthew 18:3. It strikes me that children accept the authority of their parents not based on any real and rationalized process. In other words, children don't take the time to reason that mommy and daddy know what they're talking about because they have valuable life experiences, had their own sets of parents to learn from, etc. Though we all know they will challenge the authority, children also inherently know and accept the authority of their parents ultimately just because they're there.
How much more so the authority of a king or country leader? This to me is where the analogy takes on a double meaning, because Jesus said we need to enter the kingdom like children. If you think about a child in relation to a middle eastern kingdom or even a middle ages kingdom...there is so much more at work sustaining the kingdom than the child is ever aware of until he or she grows older and receives an education.
It's definitely conceivable to fall into the trap of thinking you/your system knows it all, and as you said many become their chosen theological system. However, I also don't think that we should enter into the opposite error, which is to maintain that God is totally unknowable.
I think what you're kinda beating around the bush on (and not in a negative way) is that faith must be approached in humility. I think this is absolutely why Jesus said that we must come as children in Matthew 18:3. It strikes me that children accept the authority of their parents not based on any real and rationalized process. In other words, children don't take the time to reason that mommy and daddy know what they're talking about because they have valuable life experiences, had their own sets of parents to learn from, etc. Though we all know they will challenge the authority, children also inherently know and accept the authority of their parents ultimately just because they're there.
How much more so the authority of a king or country leader? This to me is where the analogy takes on a double meaning, because Jesus said we need to enter the kingdom like children. If you think about a child in relation to a middle eastern kingdom or even a middle ages kingdom...there is so much more at work sustaining the kingdom than the child is ever aware of until he or she grows older and receives an education.
It's definitely conceivable to fall into the trap of thinking you/your system knows it all, and as you said many become their chosen theological system. However, I also don't think that we should enter into the opposite error, which is to maintain that God is totally unknowable.
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 6,008
- 1,229
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Curious about what your beliefs are in respect to the OP question. Premill/Amill? Pretrib/midtrib/posttrib?HammerStone said:
Then, as the OP asks, do you see any flaws in the tradition beliefs in the doctrines you believe in?
I generally fall along the Premill Posttrib spectrum, but I will qualify that a bit in that I think Eschatology is something that remains open for me, as I've increasingly read material from both the PostMill and Amill camps. I've honestly all but written off Pretrib, though I am open to a convincing argument should I find myself in error. I do have the most concerns with that eschatological point of view, though, because I think it naturally posits the most to lose if in error.ewq1938 said:
I do see flaws in the system because eschatology becomes a very heated issue where words like heresy are thrown around. It's a very big problem in the dispensationalist camp that I generally come out of.
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 6,008
- 1,229
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
HammerStone said:
Yes, pretrib basically sets people up to accept "Jesus" at the second coming which could happen today but if that isn't the real Jesus but someone claiming to be him then they could commit apostasy which scripture speaks of. Same concern with Amill as they also believe Christ's return is imminent and do not believe there will be a false Christ.
I wrote off pretrib long ago because it is not scriptural supported and have done the same for Amill and postmill. Very easy to prove those doctrines to be unscriptural IMO.
Oh boy.....
Congratulations......you have actually done it. You have provided the dumbest post I have ever witnessed. Seriously - you take the prize. I can no longer continue to post here........I think this thread has retired me
I am not speaking carelessly - dumb, stupid, absurd. Go look at my post count - been here for years - seen plenty of stupid, You take the cake.
Congratulations......you have actually done it. You have provided the dumbest post I have ever witnessed. Seriously - you take the prize. I can no longer continue to post here........I think this thread has retired me
I am not speaking carelessly - dumb, stupid, absurd. Go look at my post count - been here for years - seen plenty of stupid, You take the cake.
OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
aspen,aspen said:
I think this is an over the top response. You stated; 'What do you think word (noun) made flesh (verb) means?'. However, this is what this sentence means (with parts of speech): What do you think that word (noun) made (verb) into (preposition) flesh (noun) means (verb)?
So ewq was close to the mark: 'I think it's nonsense since flesh is a noun not a verb'. I wouldn't use the word, 'nonsense', but would say that it is more accurate to say that in your sentence flesh is a noun and not a verb.
Oz
ewq1938
Well-Known Member
- Jul 11, 2015
- 6,008
- 1,229
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
OzSpen said:
No offense need to be taken by the word "nonsense" as it literally means "makes no sense". A noun is not a verb plain and simple so it makes "no sense" to say a noun is a verb.
This is the original claim:
word (noun) made flesh (verb)
But that is wrong. This is the correct:
word (noun) made (verb) flesh (noun)
So, Jesus wasn't a verb but he was a noun in motion.
Similar threads
