Church History

41magfan

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
Even if it is all a myth, reading the bible makes one a well rounded reader. Waaaaay too many relevant stories and people and quotes to dismiss it as garbage with no value. It is still quoted wnd alluded to by folks who have no idea what they are saying. It is the bedrock of western literature and consciousness. Imo.

And i am an apostate. For the record.

I think you misunderstood what I was eluding to. The Bible is 100% absolute truth. But, when man puts his spin on it, the result too often becomes embellished rhetoric with little meaning or application.

By the time Jesus came along, the Pharisee's had conjured up 5,000 pages of drivel enumerating to the unwashed masses what the 4th Commandment meant. Most of the highbrowed and haughty language I see used in most discussions about religious matters falls into this category as well.
 

Triggermortis

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
This (your statement) is the huge breaking or turning point rather for the modern church. Scofield and Dispensational thought has been a huge undermining (IMO) of traditional cover to cover Gospel presentations (Covenant). The two camps are Covenantal v Dispensational. Just a general overview, for those who did not know, Dispensationalism is breaking the Old Testament to only a historical value and the New Testament as the part we follow in application. In other words, New Testament theology is what I hear it called most the time (Baptists are in this camp). Of course with anything, Dispensational camps have at least three variations that I know of with Giesler being the hyper dispys. Some of these folks, interestingly enough, argue that we are not to take sacraments until the return of Christ as opposed to doing the sacraments as remembrance of Christ. But these difference is what makes theology an always interesting dialogue.....

With slight disagreement on your unshakeable confidence in Covenant theology, I should point out New Covenant Theology which seeks to take out the ridiculous portions of both major frameworks. It will fall way more heavily to covenant theology without the obvious error that has paedobaptism as one of its outworkings.
 

seminolewind

Guest
With slight disagreement on your unshakeable confidence in Covenant theology, I should point out New Covenant Theology which seeks to take out the ridiculous portions of both major frameworks. It will fall way more heavily to covenant theology without the obvious error that has paedobaptism as one of its outworkings.

Yes, (no offense intended) New Covenant Theology (NCT) is really a new group trying to be more covenantal without adhering to some more of the fundamental covenantal features. In other words, from a reformed convenant view point, it is considered dispensational under a new label but at least going in the right direction (which is not a bad thing). The issue would be which covenants to we adhere to and where do they start? Any reference to NTC beginning in the New Testament would undermine (from our view) the "cover to cover" covenants God made to His people and the adding of the Gentile to that promise. Maybe a better way to look at it is at different points in scripture, there are walls. So for example the big wall is the Old and New Testament. Each group defines how much water comes over the wall. The more water that you think comes over the wall defines which group you agree with. Some groups say no water comes in and OT is historical. Some say some stuff comes in from the OT (covenantal/New Testament folks with arguable differences*). Some say it all comes over the wall (Hyper Calvinists/Theonomists). Of course there are groups sprinkled through out this mix, but just trying to make the general classifications...

But these differences are merely semantic from my view point and I agree with New Covenant folks more than hyper dispensational folks. And I hope this is good fun to discuss....
 
Last edited:

seminolewind

Guest
As far as paedobaptism, the general argument is:

You have to repent to be baptized, babies can't repent and therefore cannot be baptized. Do you agree with this argument?
 

seminolewind

Guest
The Bible is 100% absolute truth. But, when man puts his spin on it, the result too often becomes embellished rhetoric with little meaning or application.

I think this is a great point, but remember (not directed at you but all people) if you want someone to believe your personal spin on interpretation you should be patient when saying yours is right because XYZ for the reasons you mentioned. For example, saying mine is right bc it is more simplistic is really just arguing your personal convictions, etc.... The irony and side point is the bible was created for us and God gave us the ability to reason so that we could study His word with all our hearts, mind and soul....
 
Last edited:

seminolewind

Guest
Maybe one last response for me tonight? Who knows though...

A big frustration and point I would like to make is from the worlds view, there is no real differences between all the religions, denominations, etc. However, from denomination to denomination the differences are sometimes huge, fundamental, etc....
 
Last edited:

Weekender

Twelve Pointer
I think you misunderstood what I was eluding to. The Bible is 100% absolute truth. But, when man puts his spin on it, the result too often becomes embellished rhetoric with little meaning or application.

By the time Jesus came along, the Pharisee's had conjured up 5,000 pages of drivel enumerating to the unwashed masses what the 4th Commandment meant. Most of the highbrowed and haughty language I see used in most discussions about religious matters falls into this category as well.

And yet....each Christian thinks the other is the one doing the Pharisee spin and gumming up the works.

The original fundamentalist movement was a revolt against the modern rejection of the miraculous in the late 19th centurty and early 20th. . The five points they ironed were broad enough for the early 20th century but not narrow enough for the 21st. That is sad. They all had to do with Jesus Christ alone. It was so limited, those five points, that even RC's who are literalist in nature, could shout Amen. Lol.

The original fundamentalists sparked a revival because it was cross-denominational ties. It will never happen now because folks splinter off over non-essentials.

The worst part of the Christian Church are Christians. jesus said, "Feed my sheep." What he did not say was sheep bite. Lol.
 

seminolewind

Guest
And yet....each Christian thinks the other is the one doing the Pharisee spin and gumming up the works.

The original fundamentalist movement was a revolt against the modern rejection of the miraculous in the late 19th centurty and early 20th. . The five points they ironed were broad enough for the early 20th century but not narrow enough for the 21st. That is sad. They all had to do with Jesus Christ alone. It was so limited, those five points, that even RC's who are literalist in nature, could shout Amen. Lol.

The original fundamentalists sparked a revival because it was cross-denominational ties. It will never happen now because folks splinter off over non-essentials.

The worst part of the Christian Church are Christians. jesus said, "Feed my sheep." What he did not say was sheep bite. Lol.

Great point! So general rule is if it ain't salvific we should all agree to disagree as we are still the Church.
 

Helium

Old Mossy Horns
Ummm...I have a Bible degree and I'm an ordained minister. So, I can throw big words and labels with the best BUT TO WHAT AVAIL...THE ONLY NAME THAT MATTERS IS JESUS

The reason some are agnostic etc is for all the extra garbage we add in...it's not that complicated fellas
 

seminolewind

Guest
Ummm...I have a Bible degree and I'm an ordained minister. So, I can throw big words and labels with the best BUT TO WHAT AVAIL...THE ONLY NAME THAT MATTERS IS JESUS

The reason some are agnostic etc is for all the extra garbage we add in...it's not that complicated fellas

Well good for you, but based on your comments I would not sit under your teaching. But, please share which denomination you are a member of, bc we would really love to know. Thanks in advance!
 
Last edited:

Weekender

Twelve Pointer
Ummm...I have a Bible degree and I'm an ordained minister. So, I can throw big words and labels with the best BUT TO WHAT AVAIL...THE ONLY NAME THAT MATTERS IS JESUS

The reason some are agnostic etc is for all the extra garbage we add in...it's not that complicated fellas

The extra garbage isn't why I'm an apostate. The things I understand very clearly are the reasons I am not following Christ.
 

Weekender

Twelve Pointer
Ummm...I have a Bible degree and I'm an ordained minister. So, I can throw big words and labels with the best BUT TO WHAT AVAIL...THE ONLY NAME THAT MATTERS IS JESUS

The reason some are agnostic etc is for all the extra garbage we add in...it's not that complicated fellas

Which Jesus? The oneness pentecostals Jesus? The Calvinist Jesus, who chose some and rejected others from the foundation of the world? The arminian Jesus, who kicks you to the curb for a sin problem?
 

Weekender

Twelve Pointer
I'm being too snarky. I apologize. My point is...the gospel message may be simple, but the day to day of living it out makes it complicated and we then feel compelled to find further answers. That's when the waters turn murky.
 

Crappie_Hunter

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
Which Jesus? The oneness pentecostals Jesus? The Calvinist Jesus, who chose some and rejected others from the foundation of the world? The arminian Jesus, who kicks you to the curb for a sin problem?


Just read what he said for himself. No person can get me in or keep me out of heaven so I don't worry about what they think. I read, I pray, I study, and I draw my own conclusions. I'm not saying I'm right about everything I think, but I think God appreciates when people seek him out and take his words at face value and tries to apply them. I continue to learn more and more each day on my walk. I don't try to get all the answers, if I could I wouldn't need God I would already understand the world. The fact that there are some things I'm absolutely clueless on, just reminds me how much I need God.
 
Last edited:

Triggermortis

Twelve Pointer
Contributor
As far as paedobaptism, the general argument is:

You have to repent to be baptized, babies can't repent and therefore cannot be baptized. Do you agree with this argument?

I think that paedobaptists, going back to the Great Controversy, sacrificed their core convictions to a degree when they tried to keep vestiges of power when they would not fully refute the Church of England. Some didn't, and within that group is where I find myself. To classify 3 covenants, works, grace, and redemption, as a framework,and then make the leap from circumcision to baptism as a sign of the new covenant is something I will accept.

And you, my friend, should not believe it either.
 

Helium

Old Mossy Horns
Well good for you, but based on your comments I would not sit under your teaching. But, please share which denomination you are a member of, bc we would really love to know. Thanks in advance!

Really!!! Please provide me comments you speak of. I'm ordained A major denomination which I won't tell bc you will simply judge further than you already have.. BUT I do not agree with all the teachings of that denomination
 
Last edited:

Helium

Old Mossy Horns
I'm being too snarky. I apologize. My point is...the gospel message may be simple, but the day to day of living it out makes it complicated and we then feel compelled to find further answers. That's when the waters turn murky.

No your not being too snarky...I don't get my feelings hurt that easy and I like it given to me straight.

I understand where you are coming from BUT think you may have missed my point. It was simply that the Jesus of the Bible (full and proper context = hermenuetics) interpreted correctly isn't solely in either of the boxes you listed. Regardless of your views we would probably have more civil conversations than some Christians I know who hold different views on minor things.

No matter what Theological differences may occur...it's clear that Jesus taught love ...and no that doesn't mean everything goes
 

Helium

Old Mossy Horns
Great point! So general rule is if it ain't salvific we should all agree to disagree as we are still the Church.

This seems quite contrary to your prideful rebuttal to my post... would you care to clarify?

P.s. Brother you don't know me from Adam and have labeled me,,, I think you mm should rethibk your stance. I was in no way nocking systematic theology..simply tired of all the division
 

seminolewind

Guest
This seems quite contrary to your prideful rebuttal to my post... would you care to clarify?

P.s. Brother you don't know me from Adam and have labeled me,,, I think you mm should rethibk your stance. I was in no way nocking systematic theology..simply tired of all the division

Not sure where you want to take this but no offense intended on my part. So humbly accept my apologies! My point is "the Church" has always varied on interpretational differences and although I wouldn't sit under many Pastors is not a reflection of the Pastor but rather my disagreement w their theology positions....
 

downeastnc

Old Mossy Horns
When I was little we went to the Salvation Army church, then the Greenville Church of God which was Pentecostal, in my teens I became agnostic and now consider my self a atheist.....
 

seminolewind

Guest
Anyone ever play guess someone's denomination by how they respond to things? Fun while on Internet threads! lol
 

Helium

Old Mossy Horns
Not sure where you want to take this but no offense intended on my part. So humbly accept my apologies! My point is "the Church" has always varied on interpretational differences and although I wouldn't sit under many Pastors is not a reflection of the Pastor but rather my disagreement w their theology positions....


All is well...:)
 

seminolewind

Guest
All is well...:)

Btw, this is not judging but rather categorizing. IMHO, I prefer denominations that spend adequate time understanding scripture and most post reformational churches are "close enough for government work" mentality.
 

sky hawk

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
That is something that has bothered me about attitudes within our church at times. Where the scripture is not painstakingly clear, there is an attempt to avoid disagreement at all costs. In other words, if we can't absolutely agree on the interpretation of this passage, we shouldn't bother discussing it. I prefer to study and search out the deep things of Christ that the H.S. reveals to those who seek earnestly. The Truth is there. Just because it's hard to understand doesn't mean it should be ignored.

While salvation is simple in concept, ALL scripture is inspired and useful for instruction, not just the parts that are easy to understand. It seems to me that most modern Christians are either so ignorant of the Word or so afraid of disagreement, that they will not have a healthy discussion on a topic unless there is complete agreement. Iron cannot sharpen iron unless the two forces are in opposition. A church full of "Yes" men will not be as sharp as one where members use scripture to wear the burrs off of each other.
 
Last edited:

seminolewind

Guest
That is something that has bothered me about attitudes within our church at times. Where the scripture is not painstakingly clear, there is an attempt to avoid disagreement at all costs. In other words, if we can't absolutely agree on the interpretation of this passage, we shouldn't bother discussing it. I prefer to study and search out the deep things of Christ that the H.S. reveals to those who seek earnestly. The Truth is there. Just because it's hard to understand doesn't mean it should be ignored.

While salvation is simple in concept, ALL scripture is inspired and useful for instruction, not just the parts that are easy to understand. It seems to me that most modern Christians are either so ignorant of the Word or so afraid of disagreement, that they will not have a healthy discussion on a topic unless there is complete agreement. Iron cannot sharpen iron unless the two forces are in opposition. A church full of "Yes" men will not be as sharp as one where members use scripture to wear the burrs off of each other.

Yes, Genesis to Revelation is inspired from God. Nothing more and nothing less..... 😎
 
Last edited:

Helium

Old Mossy Horns
That is something that has bothered me about attitudes within our church at times. Where the scripture is not painstakingly clear, there is an attempt to avoid disagreement at all costs. In other words, if we can't absolutely agree on the interpretation of this passage, we shouldn't bother discussing it. I prefer to study and search out the deep things of Christ that the H.S. reveals to those who seek earnestly. The Truth is there. Just because it's hard to understand doesn't mean it should be ignored.

While salvation is simple in concept, ALL scripture is inspired and useful for instruction, not just the parts that are easy to understand. It seems to me that most modern Christians are either so ignorant of the Word or so afraid of disagreement, that they will not have a healthy discussion on a topic unless there is complete agreement. Iron cannot sharpen iron unless the two forces are in opposition. A church full of "Yes" men will not be as sharp as one where members use scripture to wear the burrs off of each other.

Absolutely agree and I love to discuss those deep wonders and mysteries of God...BUT only when brotherly love is first and foremost. Not labels and judgement that leads to holier than though

In other words, that can only typically occur when there is a deep friendship already established. My accountability partner and I have such conversations and often times disagreements BUT it never offends each other bc the bond of trust is so strong
 
Last edited:

Helium

Old Mossy Horns
I had t he pleasure of serving on staff in a church where the elders exemplified exactly what Sky Hawk posted about... although very different walks of life and perspectives...there was a brotherly bond and iron sharpening iron that I've never experienced in such a group before
 

seminolewind

Guest
I had t he pleasure of serving on staff in a church where the elders exemplified exactly what Sky Hawk posted about... although very different walks of life and perspectives...there was a brotherly bond and iron sharpening iron that I've never experienced in such a group before

Within churches and/or small groups, etc. dialogue can be very rewarding. However, Internet forums can get out of hand? I know cuz I cause much of it. Lol
 

badlandbucks

Ten Pointer
That is something that has bothered me about attitudes within our church at times. Where the scripture is not painstakingly clear, there is an attempt to avoid disagreement at all costs. In other words, if we can't absolutely agree on the interpretation of this passage, we shouldn't bother discussing it. I prefer to study and search out the deep things of Christ that the H.S. reveals to those who seek earnestly. The Truth is there. Just because it's hard to understand doesn't mean it should be ignored.

While salvation is simple in concept, ALL scripture is inspired and useful for instruction, not just the parts that are easy to understand. It seems to me that most modern Christians are either so ignorant of the Word or so afraid of disagreement, that they will not have a healthy discussion on a topic unless there is complete agreement. Iron cannot sharpen iron unless the two forces are in opposition. A church full of "Yes" men will not be as sharp as one where members use scripture to wear the burrs off of each other.

I agree 110%. It has often perplexed me why some churches teach that basically John 3:16 (salvation via belief in Jesus ransom aka grace) is the only part of the bible that we need to be concerned with. God took the time to have the entire Bible written for a reason; all of it is there to benefit us and teach us...we just have to dig a little deeper to find the purpose of some passages.
 

seminolewind

Guest
I agree 110%. It has often perplexed me why some churches teach that basically John 3:16 (salvation via belief in Jesus ransom aka grace) is the only part of the bible that we need to be concerned with. God took the time to have the entire Bible written for a reason; all of it is there to benefit us and teach us...we just have to dig a little deeper to find the purpose of some passages.

Well a point of the thread was to discuss this. Short answer is dispensational thought (skofield) started separating the bible focusing narrowly on the NT. This distinction has blossomed amongst certain denominations. Sad part is most of them do not even know they do it. In part bc doctrine is a lost art and confessional churches are growing smaller compared to large relevant mega feel good churches of today.
 
Top