I'll give Jehovah's witnesses the win in that survey. 7 percent Like Republicans but likely don't vote, 18 percent like Democrats but likely don't vote and 75 percent don't care about Republicans or Democrats. That's a good show.
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.
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:
More: Emerging Church - Distinctive Teachings and Goals | Apologetics Index
- 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).
There is a difference between obedience and purity. Purity is an achievement. It's focused on us. Obedience focuses on Jesus. The problem with purity is that it leads to a checklist morality, where people are worried about even things that are arguably not a problem for Jesus, because any failure makes them impure. You see this in Christian Advice all the time. The purity focus leads people to spend all their time trying to get rid of supposed sins. As they fail they get more and more concerned, and their focus gets more and more on themselves.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,
...
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.
The term "fundamentalist" came from a series of books called "The Fundamentals." It covered many of the basics of Christian theology from a conservative viewpoint, but also contained polemical articles on a variety of contested topics. Here's a list of the contents: The Fundamentals - Wikipedia.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.
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)
There is a difference between obedience and purity. Purity is an achievement. It's focused on us. Obedience focuses on Jesus. The problem with purity is that it leads to a checklist morality, where people are worried about even things that are arguably not a problem for Jesus, because any failure makes them impure.
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....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.”
Well, that sums up liberal "Christianity" quite well.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.
God pegged this guys 2k years ago: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.
The aversion to doctrine and advocacy of good works is indeed contradictory, while the idea is to avoid persecution by taking a stand for basic morality such as condemns fornication, by jumping on the bandwagon of moral molehill movements such as being against wearing fur while celebrating women dressing as prostitutes, if dressing at all.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).
From the Sinsinawa Dominican nuns: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
More like what they do not believe, with pathos replacing ethos, except that of politically correct societal morality that protests against starving (falsely) polar bears while promoting the right to murder infants.Through conversation with them, “outsiders” will become part of our community, and then be able to understand and believe what we teach
Thanks.More: Emerging Church - Distinctive Teachings and Goals | Apologetics Index
I'm not sure that that's entirely correct. Hardly any church of any denomination--including evangelical churches and self-described "non-denominational" congregations--is without a published statement of beliefs.
The issue with people who oppose "creeds" seems to be the requirement, if there is one, for them to publicly affirm their agreement with one or more of the historic creeds (Apostles,' Nicene, and Athanasian, for example) which are seen by some of the older church bodies as infallible or at least as definitive for Christians in general.
Which is simply another example of specious liberal dichotomies. You cannot be obedient to i Christ without seeking to attain moral purity, to be as He is in this world, which disallows moral impurity as acceptable or moral purity as marginal.There is a difference between obedience and purity. Purity is an achievement. It's focused on us. Obedience focuses on Jesus.
And just where would they get that idea? Surely not per the specious red-letter heremenuetic:The problem with purity is that it leads to a checklist morality, where people are worried about even things that are arguably not a problem for Jesus, because any failure makes them impure.
The problem is not purity focus but being focused more on the sin that must be dealt with than on Christ who is the solution.You see this in Christian Advice all the time. The purity focus leads people to spend all their time trying to get rid of supposed sins. As they fail they get more and more concerned, and their focus gets more and more on themselves.
.
"Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’ ” (Luke 17:9-10, NRSV) Not "we've achieved moral purity." See also the parable of the sheep and goats. The sheep didn't even know they were doing something meritorious. I don't think that's just a throw-away detail
That is absurd, for as told to your comrade, besides resorting to the spurious "red-letter" hermenuetic, you ignore most of the other texts such as condemn personal moral impurity, including where the Lord clearly condemns adulteries, fornications, lasciviousness, blasphemy etc.Obviously Jesus had plenty to say about behavior. But it was all things that matter to others. He didn't talk about purity at all, except Mat 5:8, which isn't quite moral purity.
Are you serious? Once again besides resorting to the spurious (and it is indeed) "red-letter" hermenuetic, you ignore that what he condemned the Pharisees for was merely ritual purity, while reproving them for their fornication (via divorce) implicit in murder of prophets which preached moral purity in heart and in life, and being greedy and filthy inside:He used holy of the Holy Spirit, but not of people except the "holy prophets." He didn't even use the term sin very much, except in forgiveness of sins. Basically he avoided anything that would lead people to the personal purity approach. That was very specifically the Pharisees' ideal.
You are restricting moral purity to that which is merely for show as contrasted with social service, yet the Lord clearly condemned basic moral sins such as stealing, fornication, etc. and whose life was that of moral purity from such, as well as having compassion toward those in needs, and the two are to go together.This doesn't mean that he didn't care about how we act. But I think when we do things because they matter we get different results than when we do things to be pure or sinless.
You are misunderstanding the point Jesus is actually making . He was revealing the sin in the rich man's heart. This is consistent with what we call the Second Use of the Law. The law does not justify us or make us holy, it points out our sinfulness.
What Jesus is saying is more like the opposite of what you think he's saying. He goes on to explain that even though salvation with man is impossible, it is possible for God. That's why as he goes along, he starts talking more about his secret mission, to confront the Jewish elders and Roman authorities and to die on the Cross. Because he knows he's going to have to confront sin and evil, masked behind religious hypocrisy and political pragmatism, personally, because these things are simply too great for mortal man to deal with.
Are you serious???!!! This is simply one more of your false dichotomies, contrasting following Christ with moral purity. How can one imitate Christ without seeking to live immaculate lives versus sinfulness? The two are not opposed, and Christ did not come to help us to live immaculate lives with just a little moral correction, but came as Lord and Savior to save us because of our sinfulness and as a result to seek to be in this world as He was, (1 John 4:17) which in no way was that of moral impurity.So Jesus didn't come to be a moralist and help us to live immaculate lives with a little moral correction, he came to be our Savior, to take us to a complete new, grace-filled way to live, where we imitate Christ despite our sinfulness.
What?! Rather than salvation from her sins, her fornicating that the Lord purposely brought up being just one of them, "Jesus is offering her validation as a human being ...That's why she goes away so happy...as a person capable of worshiping God?"Jesus is not condemning the woman at all, but showing compassion for her because he knows she has gone to the well alone, in the middle of the hot day, because she is afraid of ridicule and shame. Jesus is offering her validation as a human being, despite her shame. That's why she goes away so happy, she's seen the Messiah and he affirms her as a person capable of worshiping God, even though the other women in town have probably been talking about her behind her back for years.
Why would I be interested in reading more of your grievous absurdities? I certainly do not claim to live morally perfect in heart or all deeds, but i cannot lower the standard i am to seek to attain.I have a book for you to read if you really want to understand anything about my religion, it is called Reading the Bible with Martin Luther, by Timothy Wengert.
No, not caring about who the captain will be on a ship full of souls while belonging to a mind-control lying cult is not a good show, nor is your affirmation of it. You may not vote out of disgust, but you must care.I'll give Jehovah's witnesses the win in that survey. 7 percent Like Republicans but likely don't vote, 18 percent like Democrats but likely don't vote and 75 percent don't care about Republicans or Democrats. That's a good show.
And just what "4 spiritually laws" variety says that you must stop sinning and be actually perfect (not simply be imputation) to be saved? Why resort to misrepresentation?By contrast, evangelical religion of the "4 spiritually laws" variety swooped in as a teenager and told me that God was in fact angry with me as a sinner and I needed to accept Jesus to be right with God, and to stop sinning and be perfect.
.He knew of a chapain on base, she was a Presbyterian minister in the PC-USA, but serving in the Air Force as a major
Meaning she subscribed to the discredited Documentary Hypothesis' and or otherwise divested the OT of the level of authority that the Lord and NT church ascribed to it.She gave me a book about Old Testament higher criticism and challenged my newfound fundamentalism, and encouraged me to be open-minded and thoughtful in my approach to the Christian faith.
She has no authority over Scripture, and i am sorry she seduced you with her liberal sophism which is being continually exposed here, by the grace of God.I gave her a grudging respect as a minister (she was a better preacher than many of the Methodists I have encountered), even if I didn't completely understand where she was comming from, I could recognize that she was somebody that had a certain amount of authority.
Which is another contradiction. You may be preaching according to your faith but the faith of the NT church ordained only men, Christ Himself only choosing males as apostles, reflective of the positional distinctions btwn genders, and required them to met a holy standard.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.
The church at Corinth also had your problem as were some others who were not purity-focused, and thus were told,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.
It means not ritual purity, but such things as the Lord said defiled on in Mark 7:21-23.What is the specific sense of ‘moral purity’ here, and in the other posts you’re replying too? Thanks
Details or is ambiguity a strength?The way it is explained is repulsive. Maybe the people explaining it have made it so.
The problem is not purity focus but being focused more on the sin that must be dealt with than on Christ who is the solution.
Actually before this Christian evangelicals were at the forefront of the movement in the West. with such primary men whom we highly esteem such as William Wilberforce who wrote in his diary when he was 28 that, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and Reformation of Morals. The famous English preacher Charles Spurgeon had some of his sermons burned in America due to his censure of slavery, calling it "the foulest blot" and which "may have to be washed out in blood."[93] Methodist founder John Wesley denounced human bondage as "the sum of all villainies," and detailed its abuses.[94] In Georgia, primitive Methodists united with brethren elsewhere in condemning slavery.@PeaceByJesus , some of us take costly stands for what we believe in. We don't see ourselves as trying to avoid persecution. Your characterization of mainline Christianity is just narrow, bigoted, and wrong.
An example of a costly stance for us was our position on civil rights in the 60's and 70's. That was not popular with the general public, and in some cases cost us membership.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?