Does God meet us where we are despite our denomination?

FireDragon76 · Apr 26, 2019

Mary Meg said:
No, not identical -- but in communion.

Not always. The history of the early Church is not so pristine as that. What you are seeing with the Orthodox right now is really how the Church has always gotten along. Mostly alot of squabbling over the centuries. What I think is miraculous is that the Gospel has survived despite all this.

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

DeepWater said:
One of the ways you can detect if a person is religious or if they are saved, and understand what this means, is to ask them...
"Are you a Christian" ??
And if they say....."yes, im a baptist, a catholic, a pentecostal"...ect, then this is the answer of a religious person, who is actually not born again or it the answer of a person who is a babe in Christ or , very new to their faith.

So, you think there's a contradiction between being "religious" and being "saved"? "Religious" people can't be "saved"?

So, with regards to "following".....here is the answer to that.
Paul said....."be a follower of ME, as i follow Christ".

News flash: Paul was a leader and a pastor.

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
...yes, but we do have to keep in mind that it's not clear that when Paul had a feud with Barnabas, one was somehow obviously 'more right' than the other.

In any point of doctrinal disagreement, there is a right a wrong. No, it's not always immediately obvious, but our God is not a relativistic God. Sometimes those points of disagreement can be of greater or lesser importance to God's grace and mercy -- as I said in the OP. But we shouldn't ever presume that it doesn't matter.

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

bekkilyn said:
The divisions Paul was specifically referring to in 1 Corinthians had a lot to do with the Lord's Supper. Unlike most of us today, the Lord's Supper involved a community meal, so the wealthier members didn't have to work late like the non-wealthy laborers/slaves and so they would start eating before the others arrived, so they weren't sharing the Lord's Supper, and the food would be gone by the time the poorer members got there. There was a HUGE division between the rich and the poor in this community and they were going on with the Lord's Supper as if it was just another secular banquet. Paul strongly condemned this behavior and stated that he would instruct them properly the next time he was there.

As I've already replied, the divisions he's talking about in 1 Corinthians 1-3 are much broader than the divisions over the Lord's Supper he describes in chapter 11.

Dave-W · Apr 26, 2019

Mary Meg said:
So, you think there's a contradiction between being "religious" and being "saved"? "Religious" people can't "saved"?

Deepwater is using the wrong definition of "religion."

James 1:26
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless.

James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

Chris V++ said:
Maybe renounce isn't the right word. What Im trying to say is many churches don't accept the sacraments of other churches as valid. For example I was baptized by a baptist minister shortly after I had my conversion experience. I tried to join a Church of Christ a few years later and was told I had to be re baptized. I was told that the baptism didn't count. As a Christian I felt that would be an insult to God since I was already baptized. In there eyes I wasn't really a Christian. Forme, being baptized again would have been renouncing my original baptism.

I wouldn't ever renounce my baptism or be baptized again. I did that in good faith and I believe God's part was also in good faith. (I happen to know that the Catholic church, for example, wouldn't demand to re-baptize me -- rightly seeing the oneness of the Lord's baptism.)

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

Tree of Life said:
Ever heard of Arian bishops?

It's not my place to judge the Arian heresy or whether those people were still united to Christ or not. But my caveat all along has been that "early [orthodox] Christians were united."

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

bekkilyn said:
Because humans cannot. That's the point of God's grace.

Humans can, with God's grace.

Tree of Life · Apr 26, 2019

Mary Meg said:
It's not my place to judge the Arian heresy or whether those people were still united to Christ or not. But my caveat all along has been that "early [orthodox] Christians were united."

Before Arianism was condemned at the Council of Nicea there was a long period of time where bishops and whole churches were divided on this issue. Even after Arianism was condemned it still had great influence in the middle east and north Africa. This is part of the reason why Islam became so successful in those regions.

You speak as if every early Christian understood and believed the Nicene Creed and there were none who disagreed with it. This simply isn't true.

2PhiloVoid · Apr 26, 2019

Mary Meg said:
In any point of doctrinal disagreement, there is a right a wrong. No, it's not always immediately obvious, but our God is not a relativistic God. Sometimes those points of disagreement can be of greater or lesser importance to God's grace and mercy -- as I said in the OP. But we shouldn't ever presume that it doesn't matter.

True; there very well could be a right and a wrong governing the final human arbitration of a theological dispute among us Christians. But as you've said elsewhere (and as I've also said likewise elsewhere before you came along here to CF), the things of Scripture are not always clear enough for any of us to know precisely the Mind of the Lord on some matters. So, He has apparently left some things up to conceptual ambiguity or vagueness...and we just have to existentially live with this fact without, at the same time, devolving to the point where we needlessly anathematize one another.

In saying this, I would definitely say that God then does, and has, to meet us "where we are," so to speak ...

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

Tree of Life said:
Nope. Because the Catholic system includes the doctrine that the Catholic church is the only true church. The Reformed system does not include the doctrine that reformed churches are the only true churches.

It honestly seems kind of a niggling point to me. A lot of Protestants believe their church is the "only true church" -- especially they have in the past. My great-grandparents would have told you that if you aren't Baptist, you aren't saved. So if you believe your church is the "only true church" -- so what? I happen to know that the Catholic understanding of this has more to do with a belief in the oneness of what Christ founded, than excluding non-Catholics from the possibility of salvation.

So, in the end, which system is more divisive?

Which is more divided?

In my city, there's a P.C.U.S.A. church, a P.C.A. church, and a Cumberland Presbyterian church all within a couple of blocks of each other. And something called "O.P.C." also. Only one Catholic church in this same area.

tz620q · Apr 26, 2019

Mary Meg said:
Ok... so I'm not feeling that great today, so please try to go easy on me?

I have a theory. I see so many examples of God's grace in different denominations... godly grandparents and great-grandparents in my own Baptist family, saints I admire in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, learned and devoted people I read about among Lutherans, Calvinists, etc., and different Protestant denominations here in the U.S. So it seems to me that God is working in all these people's lives, despite having some differences of opinion.

Oops.

In Protestantism, the unforgivable sin is to admire anything Catholic or Orthodox. For penance, do five altar calls and a potluck dinner.

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
Mostly alot of squabbling over the centuries. What I think is miraculous is that the Gospel has survived despite all this.

Despite the squabbling, those people went on talking to each other for centuries. And I believe it was a sin to stop talking -- in the end, for Christendom to get a divorce. Paul said "let there be no divisions"; he didn't say, "you'll never have a disagreement."

Dave-W · Apr 26, 2019

Mary Meg said:
And something called "O.P.C."

That is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Dave-W · Apr 26, 2019

tz620q said:
Oops. In Protestantism, the unforgivable sin is to admire anything Catholic or Orthodox. For penance, do five altar calls and a potluck dinner.

We don't do "penance" in Protestant churches.

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

Tree of Life said:
You speak as if every early Christian understood and believed the Nicene Creed and there were none who disagreed with it. This simply isn't true.

No, I never said that. But there was an orthodox view, even before it was clear to everybody. And when that orthodox position was finally declared, it was the obligation of the orthodox faithful to follow it. It's true that many did not -- and they ceased to be orthodox.

FireDragon76 · Apr 26, 2019

Mary Meg said:
Despite the squabbling, those people went on talking to each other for centuries. And I believe it was a sin to stop talking -- in the end, for Christendom to get a divorce. Paul said "let there be no divisions"; he didn't say, "you'll never have a disagreement."

Most mainline Protestant churches have been involved in ecumenism to one degree or another since the early 20th century. Certainly that qualifies as talking to each other. Even churches that aren't in formal fellowship with each other have members that participate in parachurch organizations and ministries.

At my own church we have had Presbyterian guest pastors. As long as they do not teach or preach contradictory to our confessions, they are allowed to preach and administer the sacraments.

FireDragon76 · Apr 26, 2019

Dave-W said:
We don't do "penance" in Protestant churches.

In the sense that Rome teaches it (a juridical penalty), that is true, but that isn't to say an Anglican or Lutheran confessor would never give someone advice or some kind of penance they ought to do.

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

Dave-W said:
We don't do "penance" in Protestant churches.

I think we do. We just don't call it that.

Even in my little church, there are people who "get saved" every week. I think in a Catholic church, they'd probably be going to the confessional.

Mary Meg · Apr 26, 2019

FireDragon76 said:
Most mainline Protestant churches have been involved in ecumenism to one degree or another since the early 20th century. Certainly that qualifies as talking to each other. Even churches that aren't in formal fellowship with each other have members that participate in parachurch organizations and ministries.

Yes, and I think that's a good thing. Not knocking it all. Wish all the other churches would start talking, too.

Does God meet us where we are despite our denomination?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hide The Pain

Other scholars got to me before you did!

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads