Conservative Or Scriptural ?

[1watchman]

My grandparents were Brethren, and that is exactly how their services were. And they were very legalistic. When I went to church with them, I had to wear a hat (I wore a dress to church all the time, anyway) and, while they sang in SS, they never sang in church, and definitely no instruments. There was no pastor, whoever felt led to share, shared. Sometimes several shared. Sometimes the services were pretty long. LOL.

Hello Dawn. What you describe may have been a very strict gathering. There is legality within many church sects/denoms. and some of them dishonor the Lord in public ways. We cannot fault a testimony for what some Christians do.

The original paper posted above is often called the "brethren movement" from 1827 AD. I cannot see legality there, but a very scriptural gathering. Is there anything wrong with what that writer said? The essential need is to determine if this is true to the Word of God.

One can PM me if they wish to discuss this further, or visit the site at biblecounsel.homestead. com to understand it better. Look up always!

 

[A New Dawn]

I believe I'd have to echo what I said previously in the thread.

I believe that people speak of fundamental and conservative and liberal because all of us claim to be scriptural.

They claim that they rightly divide the word of God, but yet, so does everyone else who considers themselves a true Christian. And just because they reject creeds because it adds to the word of God (the claim made in the pamphlet), that doesn't mean it does. I grew up in a church that also rejected creeds, and when I came to understand the nature of creeds, I discovered that they don't add to the word of God, they are just statements of faith, and everyone (whether they acknlowedge it or not) has a statement of faith that they believe in. The pamphlet is a statement of faith, itself.

 

[Albion]

I believe I'd have to echo what I said previously in the thread.


They claim that they rightly divide the word of God, but yet, so does everyone else who considers themselves a true Christian. And just because they reject creeds because it adds to the word of God (the claim made in the pamphlet), that doesn't mean it does. I grew up in a church that also rejected creeds, and when I came to understand the nature of creeds, I discovered that they don't add to the word of God, they are just statements of faith, and everyone (whether they acknlowedge it or not) has a statement of faith that they believe in. The pamphlet is a statement of faith, itself.

That's right. When they say something like that, all it means is that they reject the Creeds that other churches have already drawn up. Then they present their own de-facto creed by testifying to what beliefs they hold.

 

[99percentatheism]

Usually liberal label means you're free to make it mean what's most convenient to you.

Well put.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I agree with the OP at least this far: I am much more concerned with being scriptural and orthodox than I am with such labels as conservative, liberal, etc. Yet I also see a place for tradition in churches, and for creeds. Scripture trumps tradition, but tradition can also shed light on scripture. I like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral as a formulation of how that works. And I do not care for the Brethren movement, because to me legalism is anathema, the opposite of the Good News.

 

[1watchman]

One might assume that a so-called scriptural fellowship is "setting up their own creeds", as some here have charged, but that would not be a valid charge if they TRULY are being scriptural; so, without condemning it, one should seek to know what is scriptural --unless one does not care about that and prefers to disregard God's universal testimony of the church, as shown in His Word.

Truly one can have their traditions and innovations --no one is disallowing it, but God will indeed hold us accountable for what we do to His testimony. There will be a day of accountability for sectarianism and our disregard of church truth, which has fractured God's testimony. We can not stand justified before God and say, "but I only did what I thought was a good thing".

I believe one needs to be honest and faithful to God and keep His Word, not the traditions, rituals, ceremonies, programs, activities, entertainment and various innovations found in Christendom. I hold to the original post here for truth, for I have not seen anything in my many years of study, in all of church history more true to the Word of God.

That was not "a creed" as some dissenters say, but a newspaper report of a testimony that was in existence (and still is after 185 years since the revival). If one does not want that, then certainly they can invent something they like, but then must be prepared to answer for that one day.

 

[Gentlemantech48]

Yes, I don't think this is a good universal picture of Conservative Christians. This is one type of denomination which does sound legalistic in its make-up.

 

[1watchman]

Gentleman, you call it "legalistic"? What part of that paper did you find legal? Would you see the Word of God as legal? That seems strange. It is not even a denomination.