mainline churches and evangelicals

☦Marius☦

Murican
Supporter
Jun 9, 2017
2,300
2,102
27
North Carolina (Charlotte)
✟268,123.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well, my response was to a typical attack (by GingerBeer this time) on evangelical and fundamentalist groups as being the bad guys since they "publish a lot of anti-liberal, anti-cult, and anti-catholic literature," and indeed there should be no censure of being against cults, but since liberals being liberals means they are against theological or Biblical moral dogmatism then they tend to have a knee-jerk reaction against "Bible Christians" who oppose them.

And since they like to imagine themselves as enlightened tolerant folks then they tend to present themselves as the protectors of the big bad conservative evangelical-types, with the most they do, as i was told in a recent thread, was to "set out pew cards, which are given to the Evangelism team, who go out and call upon these poor saps and try to lead them to Christ--learning."And who are mostly Christian already.

To who i was happy to provide research in my response that they likely provided most (among Christian groups) of the humanitarian aid from private donations in 3rd world countries, while evangelical must have the overall priority, but which is not to be divorced by aid for the whole person. In my area, it is mainly such who are doing the actual work on the street.

Of course it is the liberals who manifest themselves as being the most intolerant of public opposition, and often respond to what refutes them by calling their reprovers "haters," "bigots," "homophobic" etc.. And who would were turn America in to the snowflake society we read daily about in universities, with the devil as the dean being a proxy servant to promote the demonic victim-entitlement mentality that the devil first manifested in the first "occupy movement" (Isaiah 14:14) and its selfish "share the wealth" demand seen therein and in the garden of Eden. (Genesis 3). And yet some wonder why we should oppose it.

As for Catholics being lumped together with cults, i think they also were lumped together in the sense of being victims of the neanderthal fundamentalists, who are more or less lumped together with Westboro Baptist types by the same tolerant, fair-minded objective enlightened liberal elites.

I think he meant that Protestants over all seem to have an obsession with Cults, Occults, and End times prophecy. I know many protestants who can't have a theological discussion without talking about the mark of the beast or something similar, always tying it up to how the Catholic church is the new world order type stuff. This is so far from my experiences since finding Orthodoxy, where people generally just want to discuss growth and love, or communion- or just acting like a family of believers, instead of constantly going off blasting those we disagree with and finding every little thing that could possibly be labeled satanic.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Now on the historic faith. If you could please answer the following:

1. Does the historic faith condone same sex marriages (having members who are and also performing such) and offering communion to openly unrepentant sinners?

2. Does the historic faith support ordaining priests/ministers which are openly and practicing homosexual, women or transgender?

Those are primarily issues of ethics and anthropology, not theology. One can be a theologically orthodox Lutheran in our denomination and yet differ from other evangelicals about ethics and anthropology in significant ways.

For instance, conservatives in our church have tended to strongly support women's ordination for decades, as compared to our Catholic peers. It's because we have different understandings of the ordained ministry. For us it doesn't matter who is up at the pulpit or at the altar, as long as its a human being, they are capable of acting on behalf of Christ. What matters is that they are preaching according to our faith. They don't even have to be a particularly holy person, or impeccable in character, as long as they teach, preach, and administer the sacraments correctly. Therefore, we look for a calling from God and from the congregation rather than gender or sexual-orientation in determining who can be a pastor.

We really have a spectrum of opinions on homosexuality. A large minority in our church do not consider it God's ideal, but at the same time many look for ways to try to welcome gay people in the life of the church. We are nonjudgemental and we are not a purity-focused church. That's not our mission. We favor accompanying people where they are at, and we can walk together in faith and be open to learning from each other, because we are all sinners.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GingerBeer

Cool and refreshing with a kick!
Mar 26, 2017
3,511
1,348
Australia
✟119,825.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Which absurdity is like saying the Constitution and Bill of Rights say nothing about Communist government.

Common Biblical sense tells you that when Scripture condemns those who

act contrary to Scriptural doctrine,
and do not abide in the doctrine of Christ,
and commands ecclesiastical separation from such,
and from if any man that is called a brother if he be a fornicator, etc.,
and the putting away of such wicked persons,
and to warn unScriptural heretic,
and reprove the unfruitful works of darkness,
and earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints;

then this applies to the category of persons who overall are characterized by impenitently supporting or engaging in what is condemned, and who fail to obey the commands of opposition to such.

Thus to escape this from being applied to liberals, cults, or Catholics, you must assert that each one is not characterized as coming closest what is listed here, versus the Evangelical and fundamentalist groups who malign.

Do you think liberals, cults or Catholics (as per self I.D.) are the ones who mostly deviate from Scriptural doctrine as manifested in the the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts - Rev.) - including how they understood the gospels? And mostly fail to ecclesiastically separate from such, and warn unScriptural heretics, and reprove the unfruitful works of darkness, and earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints, as revealed in that inspired record?

Substantiate what you say, as i intend to myself, by God's grace.
The more I read about "scriptural doctrine" the less I want to do with it. I'm sure it's because it isn't scriptural doctrine that's being described.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Tutorman
Upvote 0

FaithfulPilgrim

Eternally Seeking
Feb 8, 2015
455
120
South Carolina
✟39,839.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I haven’t noticed much animosity towards mainline Protestants from Evangelicals. Of course, there are things they disagree with each other, with Evangelicals expressing that they think the Mainliners are too liberal and compromising.

I’m of an Evangelical upbringing, but I have great respect for Mainline denominations, mainly in the area of salvation as I think Evangelicals put too much emphasis on the single moment or experience of salvation and leave you in the dark about what happens next. So my view of salvation is closer to the Mainline denominations.

While I don’t see necessarily see it as a Mainline vs Evangelical thing, I think the former are more likely to favor an egalitarian clergy while the latter is more likely to favor a complimentariam view of clergy.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
The portrayal of conservative Christians as portraying liberal religionists as following a centralized national leadership like lemmings is what just isn't true, except perhaps in politics. They tend to have a basic oneness of spirit though, as do evangelicals.

The ELCA is politically diverse. Half of us are registered Republicans.

Donald Trump's recent appointee to the Supreme Court is an Episcopalian, a denomination that is often characterized by conservative evangelicals as liberal.

Eric Metaxas, a well-known writer among conservative evangelicals, is also an Episcopalian. He's was also a Trump supporter.

The idea that we are all politically liberal just isn't true. We are far more diverse than conservative evangelicals, who tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Evangelical and fundamentalist groups publish a lot of anti-liberal, anti-cult, and anti-catholic literature. Maybe it is in the DNA to be against something?

It goes back to the early 20th century Fundamentalist movement defining itself polemically against all sorts of things. It's part of the evangelical identity now in some ways, taking a stand for Jesus means being against something.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The more I read about "scriptural doctrine" the less I want to do with it. I'm sure it's because it isn't scriptural doctrine that's being described.
More like the very idea of "scriptural doctrine"is repulsive?
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The ELCA is politically diverse. Half of us are registered Republicans.

Donald Trump's recent appointee to the Supreme Court is an Episcopalian, a denomination that is often characterized by conservative evangelicals as liberal.

Eric Metaxas, a well-known writer among conservative evangelicals, is also an Episcopalian. He's was also a Trump supporter.

The idea that we are all politically liberal just isn't true. We are far more diverse than conservative evangelicals, who tend to vote overwhelmingly Republican.
I was referring not "liberal religionists" being politically one, not that entire denoms are, though some overall lean heavily to port or starboard.

FT_16.02.22_religionPoliticalAffiliation_640px1.png

- U.S. religious groups and their political leanings

FT_republicans-morality.png
- http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2014/04/FT_republicans-morality.png

Also,

The share of mainline Protestants fell from 18% in 2007 to 15% of U.S. adults in 2014. By comparison, declines among evangelical Protestants have been more modest (26% in 2007 to 25% in 2014). This downward trend is part of a broader decline in the share of Christians in the U.S., from 78% of adults in 2007 to 71% in 2014. Net losses for Christians have meant net gains for religiously unaffiliated adults, who in 2014 accounted for 23% of the adult population, up from 16% in 2007.

Protestants across Latin America also are significantly more religious than Catholics. And they are more likely to take conservative positions on issues such as divorce, abortion, gay marriage and gender norms. - 500 years after the Reformation, 5 facts about Protestants around the world
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Been there to a good degree, but i am glad to have to, because the level of commitment to such basics of the Christian life as holy living and doctrine,

As Hedrick has pointed out elsewhere, "Holy living" as moral purity was not that important to Jesus' ministry. Some Christians read too much Paul, and not enough Jesus. Paul gives pastoral guidance, mystical vision (theoria), and theology, but he really shouldn't shape our character and ethics as much as Jesus' teachings.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
The APOSTLE PAUL, messenger of YHWH, delivered YHWH'S BREATHED WORD, as taught by YESHUA(JESUS),
completely and perfectly as YHWH desired.

People opposed to YHWH'S WORD, often find conflict with the holiness YHWH demands in HIS WORD,
and seek sometimes to blame Paul or other men or other reasons in order to go on sinning, not desiring the LIGHT because (as it is written) their deeds are evil.(dark).
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As Hedrick has pointed out elsewhere, "Holy living" as moral purity was not that important to Jesus' ministry. Some Christians read too much Paul, and not enough Jesus. Paul gives pastoral guidance, mystical vision (theoria), and theology, but he really shouldn't shape our character and ethics as much as Jesus' teachings.
I like @hedrick but perhaps he should opine on how you are invoking him.

Now not so important to Jesus?

He confirmed marriage between one man and one woman and confirmed God's hatred for divorce (Matthew 19:1-10).

Which addresses all sexual sin outside of that bond.

He confirmed the moral law in Matthew 5 by saying:

He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.(Matthew 5:19)

“They that are in health have no need of a physician; but they that are sick. I am not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:31-32).

The very fact Jesus led a sinless life should be important to us. We should also look at the lives of His apostles and what they taught, that although human as we are taught us to live holy lives. We can't perfectly but that should not give us license to sanctify sin weighing us down or ignore it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceByJesus
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It goes back to the early 20th century Fundamentalist movement defining itself polemically against all sorts of things. It's part of the evangelical identity now in some ways, taking a stand for Jesus means being against something.
Last I checked they proclaimed a very simple list the 5 fundamentals. Thus Fundamentalists.

I've corrected this error in the past but you persist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceByJesus
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Last I checked they proclaimed a very simple list the 5 fundamentals. Thus Fundamentalists.

I've corrected this error in the past but you persist.
Doesn't everyone immersed in Jesus Name, all the followers of Jesus, DO what He Says to DO, Stand for Truth that He Says to Stand for, and Stand against what He says to Stand Against?

Jesus knows everything, and is right about everything, right ?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As Hedrick has pointed out elsewhere, "Holy living" as moral purity was not that important to Jesus' ministry.
And as I have more than pointed out, both are wrong. The idea that moral purity (excluding ritual purity) was not that important to Jesus' ministry is absurd, seeing that He taught that,

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 19:17-19)

Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. (John 4:16-18)

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23)

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend [which word is used by Him in reference to fornication in Revelation 2:14], and them which do iniquity [transgression of the law in 1 John 3:4]. (Matthew 13:41)

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: (Mark 9:47)

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:10-11)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. (Matthew 23:25)


Thus the Lord both in affirmation and in condemnation emphasized moral purity, while also much countering the merely outward but heartless and inward wickedness of the religious leaders overall of his day.
Some Christians read too much Paul, and not enough Jesus. Paul gives pastoral guidance, mystical vision (theoria), and theology, but he really shouldn't shape our character and ethics as much as Jesus' teachings.
Which is also absurd, and nigh unto heresy! The gospel are far far from sufficient as revelation, containing words and deed of Christ (much of which is repeated in the synoptics) but lacking in the explanatory interpretive and expanded theology and moral teaching of the epistles, and application therein and in Acts, and this need for further revelation the Lord foretold He would provide. ("many things to say unto you.." John 16:12)

It was the Spirit of Christ who inspired the writing of the gospels, in which not all the words of Christ (as well as some others) can be verbatim (as duplicate accounts show), and which the Spirit of Christ could expand or contract, or recast.

And it was this same Spirit of Christ who inspired Paul and the other writers, using their distinctive personalities yet writing what the Lord wanted, like a wind orchestra, each with a distinctive sound, yet playing in complementary harmony under the direction of the Great Conductor, whose breath they play by. Glory to God.

Yet the words of Christ can convey a greater power, reflective of the person.

Left to the gospels you have much that requires interpretation and and no revelation as to how the NT church understood the gospels , and very little ecclesiology, the nature of the new covenant, and the place of the Gentles, and only a basic understanding of justification, predestination, etc. and very limited eschatology.

Thus while some Christians are not reading enough Jesus versus Paul, the latter does more than just give pastoral guidance and mystical vision, and Catholics and liberals, if anything, manifest they rely on the gospels over Paul, since the former can be abused more by them, versus the explanatory Acts and letters to the churches.

You and Hendrick's appeal to Christ supposedly not treating moral purity as important is just one example, though blown out of the water by the grace of God.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You and Hendrick's appeal to Christ supposedly not treating moral purity as important is just one example, though blown out of the water by the grace of God.
Also seems to be the approach of the post modern emergent church. Which started in the late 20th century and has crept in to every corner of Christianity.

What is the emerging / emergent church movement?

What is the Emerging Church? | CARM.org

Here's just some characteristics:

  • We have no foundation for any beliefs, therefore we cannot know absolute truth
    Critics of the Emerging Church movement insist that emergents misrepresent epistemological foundationalism (the belief that we do possess some knowledge that serves as a basis for further knowledge) as requiring “bombproof certainty,” something contemporary foundationalists insist they do not hold to. What contemporary foundationalists do believe is that we can possess real knowledge that is so certain it requires extraordinary evidence to refute it. [13] D. A. Carson points out that emergent postfoundationalism is based upon yet another of their false antitheses, saying “In effect the antithesis demands that we be God, with all of God’s omniscience, or else forever be condemned to knowing nothing objective for sure.” [14] Additionally, emergents fail to consider the scriptural teaching of faith as something God-given which does possess supernaturally certain knowledge (Mt 21:21, Eph. 2:8, Heb 11:1). Emergents do not seem to realize that critiquing secular foundationalism is not the same as critiquing Evangelical foundationalism. In A New Kind of Christian McLaren’s fictional altar ego, Neo, says even Scripture is neither authoritative (in a “modern” sense) [15] nor a foundation for faith. [16]
  • Since we cannot know absolute truth, we can only experience what is “true” for our communities
    Postmodern philosophers and theologians insist that truth is only known and validated within communities (“There are no Metanarratives only local narratives”). While this implies that truth is culturally relative and that true cross-cultural communication is impossible (those outside a community must first join a community before they can understand the community’s ideas), postmodern authors communicate to people of various communities simultaneously, apparently expecting them to all equally understand their intent.
  • Since we cannot know absolute truth we cannot be dogmatic about doctrine
    Emergents see orthodoxy as “generous,” [17] that is, inclusive of many beliefs Christians have historically thought of as aberrant or heretical. Many leading emergents echo McLaren’s refusal to assert Christianity’s superiority to other world religions.
  • Since we cannot know absolute truth we cannot be dogmatic about moral standards
    Absolute stands on issues such as homosexuality are viewed as obsolete. Activities such as drinking, clubbing, watching sexually explicit movies, and using profanities are seen by some emergents as opportunities to show those who are not part of the Christian community that postmodern Christians do not think they are better than them through any false sense of moral superiority. [18]
  • Since we cannot know absolute truth, dogmatic preaching must give way to a dialogue between people of all beliefs
    Emerging Christians do not posture themselves before the world as though they were the light and the world were in darkness. Instead of “preaching” to the “lost” they join in “conversation,” with people of various beliefs. Conservative Evangelicals seem not to be truly welcome to contribute their distinctive content to this conversation since they represent the old, rotting corpse of “modernism.”
  • Since propositional truth is uncertain, spiritual feeling and social action make up the only reliable substance of Christianity
    Emergents consider propositional truth a “modern” (and thus outmoded) fascination. Postmoderns think and communicate in narratives. [19] Since the pursuit of truth is portrayed as a never ending journey with no solid starting point, they consider the only legitimate measuring rods of Christianity to be experience and good works. Without a solid footing in revealed truth, however, emergents have no firm foundation for knowing which experiences are valid and which works are good (something they do not seem to notice).
  • To capture a sacred feeling we should reconnect with ancient worship forms
    Trappings such as burning candles and events such as silent retreats are popular in the movement. Embracing these premodern forms further breaks their connection with “modern” Christianity.
  • Since sublime feeling is experienced through outward forms, we should utilize art forms in our worship
    Many participants in the movement see appreciating art for art’s sake as a spiritual experience.
  • Through conversation with them, “outsiders” will become part of our community, and then be able to understand and believe what we teach
    The postmodern approach is not to try to persuade people to believe, it is to try to befriend people into joining. This is commonly expressed as Robert Webber does when he says “People in a postmodern world are not persuaded to faith by reason as much as they are moved to faith by participation in God’s earthly community.” [20] There is a false antithesis in such statements, however. We do not have to choose between a purely cerebral attempt to talk others into believing correctly on the one hand and offering an open, unqualified invitation to our group on the other. The Bible teaches us to proclaim the gospel message with reliance upon the Holy Spirit to empower, illuminate, and convict (1 Co 2, 1 Thess 1:9). When such proclamation is absent, as it is in the Emerging Church movement, there is no prophetic voice coming from the church calling sinners to repent and believe the Gospel (Ac 2:38, 16:30-32).
More: Emerging Church - Distinctive Teachings and Goals | Apologetics Index
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Marines of Christian faith

That said Marines need actual instruction and training in order to be Marines. Preparation for Godly living and spiritual development is sorely lacking in fundamentalist type churches, in my experience anyway.
 
Upvote 0

Tom 1

Optimistic sceptic
Supporter
Nov 13, 2017
12,212
12,526
Tarnaveni
✟818,769.00
Country
Romania
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And as I have more than pointed out, both are wrong. The idea that moral purity (excluding ritual purity) was not that important to Jesus' ministry is absurd, seeing that He taught that,

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 19:17-19)

Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. (John 4:16-18)

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:21-23)

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend [which word is used by Him in reference to fornication in Revelation 2:14], and them which do iniquity [transgression of the law in 1 John 3:4]. (Matthew 13:41)

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: (Mark 9:47)

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery. (Matthew 5:32)

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:10-11)

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. (Matthew 23:25)


Thus the Lord both in affirmation and in condemnation emphasized moral purity, while also much countering the merely outward but heartless and inward wickedness of the religious leaders overall of his day.

Which is also absurd, and nigh unto heresy! The gospel are far far from sufficient as revelation, containing words and deed of Christ (much of which is repeated in the synoptics) but lacking in the explanatory interpretive and expanded theology and moral teaching of the epistles, and application therein and in Acts, and this need for further revelation the Lord foretold He would provide. ("many things to say unto you.." John 16:12)

It was the Spirit of Christ who inspired the writing of the gospels, in which not all the words of Christ (as well as some others) can be verbatim (as duplicate accounts show), and which the Spirit of Christ could expand or contract, or recast.

And it was this same Spirit of Christ who inspired Paul and the other writers, using their distinctive personalities yet writing what the Lord wanted, like a wind orchestra, each with a distinctive sound, yet playing in complementary harmony under the direction of the Great Conductor, whose breath they play by. Glory to God.

Yet the words of Christ can convey a greater power, reflective of the person.

Left to the gospels you have much that requires interpretation and and no revelation as to how the NT church understood the gospels , and very little ecclesiology, the nature of the new covenant, and the place of the Gentles, and only a basic understanding of justification, predestination, etc. and very limited eschatology.

Thus while some Christians are not reading enough Jesus versus Paul, the latter does more than just give pastoral guidance and mystical vision, and Catholics and liberals, if anything, manifest they rely on the gospels over Paul, since the former can be abused more by them, versus the explanatory Acts and letters to the churches.

You and Hendrick's appeal to Christ supposedly not treating moral purity as important is just one example, though blown out of the water by the grace of God.

What is the specific sense of ‘moral purity’ here, and in the other posts you’re replying too? Thanks
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums