Religious Titles

Post Reply New Topic

OK, so you don't celebrate the Eucharist frequently according to 1 Cor 10:16-17, 1Cor 11:26-27, do not come together on Sunday to break bread according to Acts 20:7. I said nothing about speaking in tongues. So I'm going to assume that you don't confirm the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands as according to Acts 8:15-17, 19:5-6, Heb 6:2, and 2Tim 1:6. You don't appoint elders through the laying on of hands according to Acts 6:5-6, 13:2-3, pray to Jesus according to Mt 11:28, Acts 7:59-60, 1Cor 16:22-23, and Rev 22:20, don't even know what "anoint the sick with oil means" even though it was done according to Mk 6:12-13 and Jas 5:14, OFTEN kneel down to pray according to Acts 9:40, 20:36, 21:5, Lk 22:41, consider yourself to be a witness of Christ according to Acts 1:8, 10:39, 13:31, celebrate Pentecost according to Acts 2:1, 20:16, 1Cor 16:8, or have special people to look after widows and orphans according to Acts 6:1-4, Jas 1:27.

I'm not suggesting that you HAVE to do each and every one of these things in any kind of legalistic fashion to be a Christian or stand approved before God. Quite the opposite--all that is required for salvation is faith that Jesus died to rescue from sin and that, as Jesus is the Son of God and hence God, He is PERFECTLY qualified in every way to be at once the sacrifice for humanity AND the High Priest of the sacrifice. Faith in His self-sacrifice is meaningless if you don't know who He is. But the point is that it is this faith, not the list of things I went through earlier that is required.

The reason why that list is important is because those were things that Christians regularly participated in. What's interesting to me is the "church" in a general manner of speaking is all the time moving towards what we THINK was the way the first Christians related to Jesus. My church, for example, has so-called "connect groups" which meets in members' homes to discuss the Bible and how that relates to us today. We know from reading Acts that churches were first organized around peoples' homes--that is, after Christians got kicked out of the synagogues, but churches were already meeting in peoples' homes before that. Also, "sermons" in the early church were not simply homiletic, but rather include a homily followed by discussions, or Q&A sessions (which was probably what the writer was referring to when he said that women should "keep quiet," apparently women were participating but in a disruptive and disrespectful fashion rather than in any constructive way). With modern technology such as it is, there's no reason to think that worshippers joining in worship via internet or television can't interact through text messaging or online chat which can be addressed as part of the sermon. Sure, the earliest Christians didn't have THOSE kinds of Blackberries, but it's interesting to see the potential for returning to many of the elements of early Christian worship through technological means.

But the point of that list is THESE WERE THINGS THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN, before any kind of "apostasy." The fact remains that MANY Christians continue to do these things. Many Christians, in fact, that you consider "apostate." What is interesting to me is that many "apostates" ARE doing what pre-apostate Christians did and yet they are still "apostate," while Witnesses do NOT do these things. So why are WE apostate and you are not? That doesn't make sense. It would make MORE sense to worship as many other Christian believers, brothers and sisters, do rather than condemning them all summarily as apostate.

In regards to the Colossians passage: The word "other" is NOT in the original Greek. Not at all. And there is no reason to add it. It stands perfectly clear as is. So your answer "to add clarity" is not really an answer at all. What exactly does the insertion clarify?

Sometimes I sigh when I post information, and it's not because I don't enjoy it, but because it turns into a circular discussion that seems to go nowhere. At some point the old adage "we can agree to disagree" comes into play. This reminds me of a time when I was very young. My father had an hour long discussion with a Jewish mailman while out in our witness work. My father tried to show why the Jewish nation is no longer God's chosen people directly from the bible. Being fully aware that this mailman still didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah he used many scriptures from the old testament. He used the old testament gospels of Ezekiel, Daniel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah. He also included scriptures from Psalms and the Chronicles (although at the time this information was over my head). After an hour of going no where he kindly ended the conversation and wished the mailman well on his route.

I'm going to wish you well.

I guess I have to sigh, too, when I post responses. I enjoy challenges that make me really think about my faith. I'm not going to suggest that you should NEVER post here, but most people who stay active in PPR are the ones who enjoy the challenges, enjoy learning, and enjoy thinking about matters of philosophy and faith. You're supposed to love the Lord with all your MIND, and just giving up isn't much of a mental exercise.

You also have to consider sometimes that what you find when you really dig into the issues that maybe, just MAYBE what you believe is false. I take that risk every single time I post here. By putting myself in a position to answer for my faith, I've found that I've had to adjust my thinking. Certain things I know to be true--but if x is true, then why y? That's the kind of thing that happens here, and that allows me to say, "OK, THIS matter of faith doesn't make sense, but THAT issue actually makes MORE sense now." I can confidently say that I've been saved, that I have the Holy Spirit, that I believe what God did in the OT, etc. Do I have empirical evidence of the Holy Spirit? No, not in any materialistic sense. Is that a problem? It could be. Are there other ways of knowing things beyond empirical knowledge? Absolutely, YES, and that happens all the time whether you're a believer or not. There you go, problem solved.

I'm concerned for you, kxmode, because you keep falling back on questionable teachings. I'm not convinced that you really question those things. Is questioning, testing, and discussing alternative views even really an option for you? I'll give you an example from my own personal experience: We Baptists (as a group) do not believe in consuming alcohol. We're tea-totalers (yeah, I spelled it right--I'm SOUTHERN Baptist!! ! We like it sweet with lots of ice). I've only found one (1) verse in the entire Bible that justifies complete abstinence from alcohol. ONLY ONE, and everywhere else the Bible seems to green-light moderate alcohol consumption. So does consuming alcohol, which I enjoy almost weekly, make me any less saved? Well, depending on the SBC Christian you talk to, I might be doomed for a Devil's hell with no recourse for forgiveness. But I know confidently that I'm allowed to drink because #1) I don't feel it's morally/spiritually compromising, #2) I can maintain self-control when I drink, and #3) salvation is not contingent upon my drinking habits. There are other Christians out there who DO have personal reservations against drinking, DO feel morally/spiritually compromised, CAN'T control themselves, or are still unsure about what being a Christian means (what we can/cannot do) or are still trying to change their behavior to lead more Christ-like lives. I would NOT want to be seen drinking by new converts or alcoholics, nor would I want unbelievers seeing me drunk. Even worse, I'm on church staff as a part-time employee, and they don't tolerate behavior unrepresentative or unbecoming of church staff. My glass house is a bit more opaque than other staff members', but my family and I are no less responsible.

The drinking issue is a relatively minor one, but I can say that I'm allowed to drink contrary to SBC philosophy because I actually read the Bible and meditate on it. I'm not convinced that tee-totalers regularly do this, else they might not be so self-righteous about their abstinence. I would probably be that kind of person--not just about drinking, but about a host of other things--if I didn't allow myself to actually THINK. At one point in early church history, new converts were NOT allowed to formally join the church through baptism until they'd attended church at least one year--the reason being their lives were at stake and they were useless if they didn't THINK and UNDERSTAND what these dangerous ideas were really all about.

And that is what I wonder about. Are answering a few questions REALLY that difficult? If so, you might ask why they are difficult and maybe consider whether you really are where you need to be. I don't always have the time I need for proper responses to atheist challenges, but I do try to pop in every now and then and give it a good go. If you're finding you have to give up so quickly, perhaps you should consider why. Perhaps there's another answer beyond the "religion" you're struggling with.

That is the only place I have ever found real answers: Beyond religion. Salvation awaits those who endure to the end, and religion can actually threaten one's ability to ever get there.

I agree. Being a Southern Baptist is something that has been a big part of the cultural tradition of my family. My grandfather, in fact, grew up Primitive Baptist, so he was a lot more hard-core than we ever were. My wife grew up Methodist, and she became a Baptist in part because of me and mostly because she saw something in the way we worship that she didn't get at home.

But because I enjoy Baptist churches doesn't mean I'm allowed to turn my brain off. I could go through the entire list of denominations out there and find some objection, but I think fundamentally they are mostly OK.

What you CANNOT do is look at traditions of individual churches and replace the Bible with those traditions. I mean, even with SBC churches there's a wide variation in traditions that really are individual to that church. My home church was strictly old hymns and "Southern Gospel" special music. When I lived in Northern New York, the church I attended had a "worship team," no choir, and used much more contemporary music in worship. Neither is SUPERIOR to the other. It just reflects different cultural attitudes and traditions, which greatly enhanced corporate worship. I imagine, for instance, a die-hard, older, "liturgical" Catholic would be very uncomfortable going to my church--which isn't "mega-church" style but it isn't traditional, either. We dress nice on Sunday morning, and that's about it. It "works" for us, but that's not going to "work" for everyone in every culture and in every tradition.

"Religion" in its strictest sense is an attempt on the part of human beings to reconnect with their Creator. I don't believe this is possible for any human effort. Christianity, at least described in the Bible, is God's effort to reconnect with us. Taken in that sense, Christianity is not really religion at all. I think it's easy to "miss the forest for the trees" when it comes to actual faith as opposed to the building or institution in which worship and teaching happen.