Apostate churches?

[ViaCrucis]

... Labyrinth ...

I agree. The greatest threat to the Church today is a massive underground maze guarded by a minotaur.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TrutherAU]

Ecumenism is the gateway to apostasy. When you begin to see "christianity" merging with Roman Catholicism, Islam, eastern philosophy, Hinduism, etc., then you know. Oh, btw, we are there! A list of apostate practices permeating the church today; Yoga, Transcendental Meditation, Witchcraft, Labyrinth, health wealth, psychology, and last, but not least...drum roll please... A DEPARTURE FROM THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE!

+1

 

[Barraco]

A Church not upholding the Creeds. A Church refusing to preach against sin and warn of the damage sin causes. A church that exclude certain scripture as it goes against their ways. A Church teaching "oneness (denying the Trinity). A Church teaching prosperity (you'll get rich by giving money to the pastor). A Church teaching Law keeping or works as a means to salvation. A Church bashing other denominations or sects out of bigotry and using untruths. A Church causing discord between or among the brethren. A church teaching hatred.

Are there any churches that aren't apostate then?

Laodicea had no compassion for the homeless, hungry or poor, but Christ only rebuked them because He loved them. How, then, are we to exclude any church that falls short of perfection?

Churches convened long before creeds were formed. Churches went without much of the Scriptures in the first century that we have today. Churches had unity with Christ in God long before Trinitarianism even needed to be defines to Arians. The Gentile churches were richly blessed because of their refusal to back down or fall into temptation long before Joel Osteen ever held self-help seminars. The inadequacies of churches in doctrine were not the defining items of Christians, for even Paul praised God that the Gospel was being spread though it was done so in contention with him.

Revelation 12:17 makes it clear who true Christians are: 1) Those who keep the commandments of God (the teachings of Jesus) and hold fast to the testimony of Jesus (in Baptism and in word.)

The rest is just divisive. Jesus sowed in love. When He returns, He should be reaping the manifestation of the seeds of His love: A loving Church.

 

[Rev Randy]

Are there any churches that aren't apostate then?

Laodicea had no compassion for the homeless, hungry or poor, but Christ only rebuked them because He loved them. How, then, are we to exclude any church that falls short of perfection?

Churches convened long before creeds were formed. Churches went without much of the Scriptures in the first century that we have today. Churches had unity with Christ in God long before Trinitarianism even needed to be defines to Arians. The Gentile churches were richly blessed because of their refusal to back down or fall into temptation long before Joel Osteen ever held self-help seminars. The inadequacies of churches in doctrine were not the defining items of Christians, for even Paul praised God that the Gospel was being spread though it was done so in contention with him.

Revelation 12:17 makes it clear who true Christians are: 1) Those who keep the commandments of God (the teachings of Jesus) and hold fast to the testimony of Jesus (in Baptism and in word.)

The rest is just divisive. Jesus sowed in love. When He returns, He should be reaping the manifestation of the seeds of His love: A loving Church.

Your misreading me. I am not saying people don't make mistakes. I'm not even saying groups don't make mistakes or fall short together. Groups (congregations) are not the Church but of the Church. The Creed is not a work we do but what we believe. Isn't believing the requirement for salvation?

 

[Barraco]

Your misreading me. I am not saying people don't make mistakes. I'm not even saying groups don't make mistakes or fall short together. Groups (congregations) are not the Church but of the Church. The Creed is not a work we do but what we believe. Isn't believing the requirement for salvation?

Maybe. Jesus said being born again was essential for salvation. It was the creation of a whole new identity.

Back then, it would have meant to call one's self a Christian (one who follows Christ) rather than a Jew. During the war between Rome and Judea, association with Jews actually brought a lot of suffering to the Jews throughout the Roman Empire. The Christians were spared that destruction because the Jews had rejected them and did not consider them Jews. Salvation was wholistic and socialistic.

Nowadays salvation means the death and rebirth of the inner man and is usually regarded in individualistic terms.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I agree. The greatest threat to the Church today is a massive underground maze guarded by a minotaur.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Apart from the obvious: A departure from the orthodoxy of the Creeds, I often feel convinced more and more each day that the religious syncretism that exists in the Religious Right constitutes a pervasive, corrupting cancer in Christianity here in the West. So there's that.

"I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it." - Rev. Billy Graham, Parade, 1981

-CryptoLutheran

I'm sorry, but the far more insidious heresy is the suggestion that "all you need is the Holy Spirit," in exclusion of the Body of Christ. Fellowship in the Body of Christ is not a nice "perk" of Christianity; it's not a luxury or add-on. It is vital and central to the Gospel. Millions of people swallowing the half-truth that the Spirit will individually "guide them into all truth," to the exclusion of the Body, is what has led to the pervasive denominationalism and every-man-for-himself mentality within Protestant Christianity. Individuals don't independently decide what is "right preaching, ordinance, and mission" for them as Christians. We are to submit to the Church as the pillar and bulwark of the truth.


What makes you think that? The Gates of Hell will never prevail against God's Church. (Mt. 16)

A Church not upholding the Creeds. A Church refusing to preach against sin and warn of the damage sin causes. A church that exclude certain scripture as it goes against their ways. A Church teaching "oneness (denying the Trinity). A Church teaching prosperity (you'll get rich by giving money to the pastor). A Church teaching Law keeping or works as a means to salvation. A Church bashing other denominations or sects out of bigotry and using untruths. A Church causing discord between or among the brethren. A church teaching hatred.

There is much truth to what you guys have posted; much of it, I believe, is related to a sense of personal entitlement that has come from our culture of consumerism and instant gratification.

Ecumenism is the gateway to apostasy. When you begin to see "christianity" merging with Roman Catholicism, Islam, eastern philosophy, Hinduism, etc., then you know. Oh, btw, we are there! A list of apostate practices permeating the church today; Yoga, Transcendental Meditation, Witchcraft, Labyrinth, health wealth, psychology, and last, but not least...drum roll please... A DEPARTURE FROM THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE!

So you do not believe that Roman Catholicism is a Christian Church?!?... tread carefully here... however, I do agree with much you have posted;
there are a number of main line reformed protestant denominations here in Canada that are promoting not just Christian universalism, but are borderline Unitarian in their belief and practice; so far the RCC has not gone down that path, nor do they seem to be planning on doing so in the foreseeable future.

 

[Alienated]

The church is made up of members of the body, the individuals. It starts there and they draw teachers that tickle their ears, and ignore the responsibilites of living a Holy life to glorify God. They want to increase the fold so they allow the world in and conform to it, to be accepted by it. Peace at all costs, even the Gospel of Christ. Were there folks.

 

[hedrick]

What do you think are some identifying characteristics of apostate churches? I myself consider churches that allow sexual union outside of marriage between a man and a woman (born that way, not manmade ) as apostate. They have departed the faith IMHO. I do not say all who are in them are apostates, some may in fact be unlearned and perhaps yet teachable, but do not see anyway that leadership who form the doctrine or those in whole hearted agreement with it can be classified any other way. Of course I would hope that God is willing to grant them repentance leading unto life. I am not interested in eternally condemning anyman.

love, JE

I'm finding it hard to respond to this without violating rules about personal attack. Largely because this posting is itself such an attack. Paraphrased it is "people who disagree with me on sexual standards aren't Christians." I think people who confuse traditional sexual ethics with the Gospel are one of the most serious dangers to Christianity today. When they think of Christianity, people no longer think of Jesus, but of a conservative social agenda. This is a serious problem for those of us trying to teach actual Christianity.

I'd prefer not to throw words like "apostate" around, because I'm afraid it's possible to be confused by what the Gospel is but still to be accepted by Jesus as his follower. Fortunately Jesus is sometimes more accepting than I would be.

 

[WisdomTree]

One thing for certain, one cannot compromise the truth.

 

[Alienated]

"When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the Lord your God for the good land He has given you. Be careful that you do not forget... Otherwise... your heart will become proud.... You may say to yourself, 'My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.' ... If you ever forget the Lord your God and follow other gods... you will surely be destroyed." Deut. 8:10-20

 

[josephearl]

What do you think are some identifying characteristics of apostate churches? I myself consider churches that allow sexual union outside of marriage between a man and a woman (born that way, not manmade ) as apostate. They have departed the faith IMHO. I do not say all who are in them are apostates, some may in fact be unlearned and perhaps yet teachable, but do not see anyway that leadership who form the doctrine or those in whole hearted agreement with it can be classified any other way. Of course I would hope that God is willing to grant them repentance leading unto life. I am not interested in eternally condemning anyman.

I'm finding it hard to respond to this without violating rules about personal attack. Largely because this posting is itself such an attack. Paraphrased it is "people who disagree with me on sexual standards aren't Christians." I think people who confuse traditional sexual ethics with the Gospel are one of the most serious dangers to Christianity today. When they think of Christianity, people no longer think of Jesus, but of a conservative social agenda. This is a serious problem for those of us trying to teach actual Christianity.

I'd prefer not to throw words like "apostate" around, because I'm afraid it's possible to be confused by what the Gospel is but still to be accepted by Jesus as his follower. Fortunately Jesus is sometimes more accepting than I would be.

I don't see why its alluded to that my post is bordering on personal attack. I am following the same walk of faith propounded in Romans chapter 1. the words as Paul wrote them seem very plain and explicit. The whole passage should be read, although I cannot imagine anyone has not read it but this verse sums it up.
'Indecent acts' and 'the due penalty of their error' all used within the clear domain of words describing only same sex sex.
“and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” (Romans 1:27, NASB95)

WHAT could I be missing here?

 

[Hismessenger]

The apostate church is hung up on organization rather than faith. The true church walks by faith and has ceased from their works just as our savior and lord has. The church is an organisim, alive and trusting God by Faith. True obedience is our ability to trust God by faith.

hismessenger

 

[josephearl]

see post below

 

[josephearl]

The apostate church is hung up on organization rather than faith. The true church walks by faith and has ceased from their works just as our savior and lord has. The church is an organisim, alive and trusting God by Faith. True obedience is our ability to trust God by faith.

hismessenger

That seems like a signpost to be cognizant of but I think there are more then a few church's which are doctrinally close enough to the truth to miss being categorized as apostate yet can be called 'hung up on organization."
There are also churches bound by the spirit of witchcraft that are not, yet, apostate.

An approach to this question might entail pondering what basic sign is the sign that identifies an apostate church.
Is it sexual promiscuity?
Is it mishandling what is taught about the God Head?
Is it denying some basic doctrinal truths?
Is it a complete disregard for what is commanded in Acts 15?

If a church allows harlot mongering, or sexual unions outside the marriage covenant to go on unchecked, if they allow Biblical understandings about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to be mishandled, if they deny the virgin birth or encourage eating things strangled or cooked in its own blood so to speak are they apostatizing?

 

[FireDragon76]

What do you think are some identifying characteristics of apostate churches? I myself consider churches that allow sexual union outside of marriage between a man and a woman (born that way, not manmade ) as apostate.

love, JE

Incidentally, Martin Luther believed that polygamy was within Biblical Christian practice (so do some modern Anglicans), so that blows the whole "Marriage is between one man and one woman" out of the water as being the standard for "orthodoxy".

Apostasy is denial of the faith as expressed in the first centuries and embodied in the major creeds of the Church. In order for a church to be apostate, the apostasy has to be formal heresy, embodied within the canons or liturgy of that church as normative practice. Otherwise a church is not necessarily heretical or apostate.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Incidentally, Martin Luther believed that polygamy was within Biblical Christian practice (so do some modern Anglicans), so that blows the whole "Marriage is between one man and one woman" out of the water as being the standard for "orthodoxy".

Apostasy is denial of the faith as expressed in the first centuries and embodied in the major creeds of the Church. In order for a church to be apostate, the apostasy has to be formal heresy, embodied within the canons or liturgy of that church as normative practice. Otherwise a church is not necessarily heretical or apostate.

Roman Catholics are the first to become indignant when a non catholic misrepresents their Church's teaching; yet, it's just fine when you do so to others.

You are lying and misrepresenting the faith of others, so that you can label us as apostate and heretics.

Nice, good luck finding that in our confessions.

There was one instance involving Philip of Hesse; Luther grudgingly performed a second marriage; almost from the very moment it happened, Luther regretted it, and made his regret well known.

Get your facts straight before you spout crap.

 

[FireDragon76]

You are lying and misrepresenting the faith of others, so that you can label us as apostate and heretics.

No, I don't regard Lutherans as heretics (that seems odd being as I attend a Protestant church). But it is true that Christians have not always enforced monogamous marriage. In the early Middle Ages the Church largely ignored the polygamy of the Frankish nobility, and Anglican missionaries in Africa made concessions for polygamy (it is still permitted in many African countries by Anglican clergy).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

No, I don't regard Lutherans as heretics (that seems odd being as I attend a Protestant church). But it is true that Christians have not always enforced monogamous marriage. In the early Middle Ages the Church largely ignored the polygamy of the Frankish nobility, and Anglican missionaries in Africa made concessions for polygamy (it is still permitted in many African countries by Anglican clergy).

While ignoring something is not right, ignoring something is not endorsing it. The RCC also, for the most part, ignored the antics of the nobility.

 

[josephearl]

Incidentally, Martin Luther believed that polygamy was within Biblical Christian practice (so do some modern Anglicans), so that blows the whole "Marriage is between one man and one woman" out of the water as being the standard for "orthodoxy".

Apostasy is denial of the faith as expressed in the first centuries and embodied in the major creeds of the Church. In order for a church to be apostate, the apostasy has to be formal heresy, embodied within the canons or liturgy of that church as normative practice. Otherwise a church is not necessarily heretical or apostate.

Whether that's true or not I do not know. Luther is not the standard for orthodoxy however.