Vain Christian Superstitions

[Father's Image]

<DIV>


<DIV>It has become evident to me that the Church at large has been plagued with vain superstitions since the early days, and continues to have this problem today. By superstition, I mean the inappropriate ascribing of spiritual power to the physical. This is usually the result of fleshly interpretation of passages of Scripture that have a spiritual meaning. An example of such physically oriented thinking is Nicodemus' question, "Can a man enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?". Such thinking results in cancer-like superstition.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Here are some examples of such superstitions</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>o&nbsp; Physical baptism as a saving act, required for salvation</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>o&nbsp; Physical baptism as spiritually empowering and spiritually changing</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>o&nbsp; Physical baptism requiring a correct "formula" (i.e., "in Jesus name"), as a requirement to invoke spiritual change, empowerment, salvation, or filling of the Spirit</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>o&nbsp; Communion as a saving, or spiritually empowering act, or as a requirement for continued salvation</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>o&nbsp; The belief that the elements of communion actually become the body and blood of Christ</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>o&nbsp; "Word of Faith" doctrine that says, "Name it and claim it", giving power to physically uttered words.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>o&nbsp; Prayer formulae, believed to invoke special power or special favor from God, such as the "jabez" prayer, the endings, "in Jesus name", and "Amen</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>o The "binding Satan" movement, which claims special authority if one utters the words, "I bind you, Satan". [Isn't it interesting that Christ only quoted Scripture to Satan, and never "bound" him</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>There are many others. The important thing to know is that all power comes from God and not from physical things, physical acts&nbsp;or physically uttered words. We should beware of any "incantation-like" formulas and magic words. God is not bound by such things, and they must sadden Him to see His words and His ways twisted into superstitions by physical-minded believers who can not look past the physical to the spiritual</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>As for baptism and communion, they are both pictures to help our hearts understand the abstract spiritual acts that they represent. They are not signs to other people but signs to the individual heart of what God has done, and what they have committed to Him. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>God Bless!</DIV>
<DIV>Ken</DIV></DIV>

 

[Patmosman_sga]

Originally posted by Father's Image
As for baptism and communion, they are both pictures to help our hearts understand the abstract spiritual acts that they represent. They are not signs to other people but signs to the individual heart of what God has done, and what they have committed to him.

The sacraments do not point to "abstract spiritual concepts." They point, instead, to ultimate spiritual realities. Baptism and communion are outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual grace through which God works to effect the salvation of the whole person--spirit, soul and body. They are not primarily "signs to the individual heart." By its very name, communion implies a corporate act: the Church, as the Body of Christ, participating with Christ in the baptism of his suffering, death and resurrection; offering itself up to God as a living sacrifice of praise.

The ultimate reality toward which this all points is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, the consummation of the ages, when heaven and earth are fully integrated and Christ himself fills all creation with his personal, loving and healing presence. As God works in Christ to redeem the whole person, so he is also at work in Christ to redeem all of creation. The Church embodies this hope, even as she experiences it as reality whenever the body of believers gather, the Word of God is read and proclaimed, and the sacraments are duly celebrated.

 

[ZiSunka]

Pretty nice of you to show up out of nowhere and tell us off like this, Father's Image. Do you have anything else to say? Or are you just here to judge us and yell at us?

 

[waterwizard]

Lambslove, I don't think he came here to judge or even to tell us off.&nbsp; I believe he's merely pointing out some ideas that some Christians seem to adhere to without really looking into them.&nbsp; For example:

Originally posted by Father's Image &nbsp;



<DIV>

<DIV>o&nbsp; Physical baptism as a saving act, required for salvation.</DIV>

<DIV>o&nbsp; "Word of Faith" doctrine that says, "Name it and claim it", giving power to physically uttered words.</DIV>

<DIV>

</DIV>



<DIV>If baptism is required for salvation, then the thief on the cross wasn't saved, and any deathbed salvation would have to be followed by deathbed baptism.&nbsp; Anyone who is saved but dies before they are baptized would not go to heaven, either.
</DIV>



<DIV>"Name it and claim it" is basically us telling God what to do.&nbsp; "Lord, I've been a good Christian and I'm going to pray for this certain thing and You will grant my prayer because I've been faithful to you."</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>That's the way I see it.....</DIV>
<DIV>Wiz</DIV>



<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>



<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV>

 

[Reformationist]

Father's Image,

Nicely put.&nbsp; Thanks for sharing and welcome to the boards.

God bless.

 

[ZiSunka]

Truth should be spoken in love. This guy spoke without relationship, even. He doesn't know us, but he comes in and his second post at CF ever is this. Seems mean, to me.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by lambslove
Truth should be spoken in love. This guy spoke without relationship, even. He doesn't know us, but he comes in and his second post at CF ever is this. Seems mean, to me.

lambslove, what was it that Father's Image said in his post that you felt was directed at the members of this board in a malicious way?&nbsp; Maybe it was a loving concern that prompted him to post what he did.&nbsp; I personally thought it was a well worded and well thought out post.&nbsp; What was it that seemed mean to you?

God bless.

 

[Job_38]

Thank you brother. I love it when more and more people find the truth and want to show the fallacies.

 

[Father's Image]

Lamb's Love, et al,

My post was not meant to be harsh to any particular individual. I proclaim the truth of God's Word because He has called me to do so. The approval of my Christian brethren is not necessary, but it would be nice to have. But I realize that there will always be many who disagree.

This is not my second post. I have posted about 13 or so. I have not spent much time in this community because I received virtually no responses on the other twelve posts. With so little interest in what I have to say, I have spent time elsewhere discussing such things. Today, I have posted a testimonial in the devotional section. Also, in the same section, you can find, "Veiled Hearts and Broken Cisterns", a post that means alot to me.

I have a series of posts, entitled, "Spiritual Headship", in the Christology section.

Lamb's Love, why do react in such a hostile manner? If my teaching has touched upon something that you have been in disagreement with, have you considered that God may be using me to show some aspect of the truth that you have missed? We all need to keep learning, do we not? I disagree that I spoke without relationship. If you are Christ's, then we are members of the same body. God knows that I have no "meanness" toward you, and that I did not want to yell at anyone. I love you with the love of Christ, and that means telling you the truth, whether you want to hear it or not. I have written what I believe that The Holy Spirit would have me to write. I am called to preach and teach His Word, and I will not be diverted by the disaproval of others.

I pray that the Lord will speak to your heart, so that His peace will be evident in your speech.

Ken

 

[Father's Image]

Reformationist,
Thank you, and thanks for the welcome!

Ken

 

[Crono]

Father's Image,

I think that lambslove's point, which I agree with, is that there is really no place for anyone to state that certain theological beliefs are wrong without saying why that is so.&nbsp; I have no problem with you saying any of the beliefs that you listed, but you are not the final authority on Christianity.&nbsp; For you to say these things so dogmatically, you should also give you reasons for believing them.

There are many who will disagree with you about these beliefs being "superstitions."&nbsp; Some will, in fact, be able to make very good arguments for why these may be true.&nbsp; Maybe they are wrong, maybe not, but your list of superstitions carries little meaning without Scripture or reasonsing to back it up.

I don't doubt that you do have a basis for your post, but I would ask that you let us know about it.&nbsp; Even though I think that I agree with most of what you said, it meant very little to me because it did nothing to encourage my study of the Bible or of Christianity or to improve my relationship with God.&nbsp; Perhaps if you told us why you believed these doctrines are supersitions, there could be a enlightening discussion on why or why not this is so, and I would encourage you to do this in the future.

I hope that you do continue to post since you may very well have some great things to add to the discussion.&nbsp; Don't let a lack of response stop you.&nbsp; Some topics just aren't as "hot" as others, but that is the nature of a public message board.&nbsp; Keep in mind, however, that just as you have asked us to be open to discovering some aspects of the truth that we may have missed, you should do so as well.

 

[Caedmon]

Actually, the majority of the points raised are related to Catholicism. I thought it was rather offensive to our Catholic brothers and sisters to call their beliefs "Vain Christian Superstitions", even though I may not agree with them.

 

[pax]

Originally posted by Father's Image

<DIV>
<DIV>As for baptism and communion, they are both pictures to help our hearts understand the abstract spiritual acts that they represent. They are not signs to other people but signs to the individual heart of what God has done, and what they have committed to Him. </DIV>
<DIV>

</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>I think *some of us* may take offence to you calling their sacraments of initiation, one of which is referred to as the "source and summit of all Christian life" and calling it a "Vain Christian Superstition."&nbsp; There are more things in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that support these things than I think you understand at this point.&nbsp; I too, would like an explanation of your reasoning.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV>

 

[JohnR7]

((Reformationist))

Do you really think reform within the system is possible? The Pilgrams came over with the attitude that they would seperate themselves from all unGodlyness & unGodly people. While the Puritans followed a few years later, with the idea you can reform the existing system and work from within. The Pilgrams and the Native American Indians worked together, the Puritans were against them from the beginning. Also, the Puritans were the ones who gave us the Salam witch trials, where the Pilgrams never put any witches on trial.

The Puritans did give us mandatory education, and even higher education, with their attitude to never waste time, and to always be productive. They went on in my opinion to form humanism. On the religious front, they joined together with the Pilgrams to form the Congressional Church, more commonly knows as the establishment.

Anyways, I was wondering, how do you reconcile the teaching of Jesus that we should seperate ourselves and come out from among them. With the attitude of the reformation that we can work within the existing system to reform it? Thanks, JohnR7

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by humblejoe
Actually, the majority of the points raised are related to Catholicism. I thought it was rather offensive to our Catholic brothers and sisters to call their beliefs "Vain Christian Superstitions", even though I may not agree with them.

Note that he uses the word physical when discussing sacramental superstitions. Just because one sees a fellow parishioner take the Eucharist at Mass does not mean that they received grace. They may have closed themself off from God. A sacrament does not occur unless the invisible grace is also involved. The mere physical act cannot ensure that this occurs.

 

[MrMalone]

I would have to agree with Chrono on post #11.

Regardless if I agree or not with your statements, I think you need to qualify those statements, even simply with the phrase that, "I see no good biblical reason or evidence for these "traditional" concepts", or something, if that is what you are getting at.

The other thing is that I think you know very well what kind of reactions you were expecting from making these kind of statements and you are likely interested in drawing out what support there is for believing in such things and ready to counterpoint those arguements.

Whether you opinions are right or wrong, is something you are going to have to substanciate. (Your post, as is, is presented as an opinion btw).

I would suggest pick a topic and bring it to the table and let people talk about it. Then you can back up statements like this with the evidence you are confident you have.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by JohnR7
((Reformationist))

Do you really think reform within the system is possible? The Pilgrams came over with the attitude that they would seperate themselves from all unGodlyness &amp; unGodly people. While the Puritans followed a few years later, with the idea you can reform the existing system and work from within. The Pilgrams and the Native American Indians worked together, the Puritans were against them from the beginning. Also, the Puritans were the ones who gave us the Salam witch trials, where the Pilgrams never put any witches on trial.

The Puritans did give us mandatory education, and even higher education, with their attitude to never waste time, and to always be productive. They went on in my opinion to form humanism. On the religious front, they joined together with the Pilgrams to form the Congressional Church, more commonly knows as the establishment.

Anyways, I was wondering, how do you reconcile the teaching of Jesus that we should seperate ourselves and come out from among them. With the attitude of the reformation that we can work within the existing system to reform it? Thanks, JohnR7

John,

I'm not sure how this relates to the topic of the thread, nor do I fully understand why it is addressed to me.&nbsp; If you have a question that is separate from this topic feel free to start a new thread.

Father's Image,

There seems to be a call for you to back up your statements with Scripture.&nbsp; I would agree with these requests.&nbsp; This thread covers many different aspects of people's faith.&nbsp; Try to break it down and be specific about your reasons for disagreeing with the emphasis placed on these beliefs.

humblejoe,

Father's Image neither singled out the Catholic faith nor violated forum rules.&nbsp; Please refrain from commenting in a way that will incite a flame war.

God bless.

 

[Father's Image]

To all,

A request for scriptural support is reasonable. I will work on it, though time is short. (Maybe in a day or two.)
What is completely unreasonable is the idea that to disagree with someone's theology and say that they are wrong is to be hurtful or offensive. I do not subscribe to the postmodern lie that says that all viewpoints are equally true and equally valid. If something is wrong with a particular position, I am not only right to call it wrong but I am also obligated to call it wrong. If your position is challenged and you disagree, then you should not take it personally, but you should be willing to defend your position with logic, reason, and Scripture (and without alot of emotion). Simply challenging your position does not constitute an offense.
There is only one truth.
Ken

 

[MrMalone]

So you are challenging those positions from your post. You don't present it as a challenge. I think that is why such a presumptuous statement could be justifiably met with emotional replies.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by MrMalone
So you are challenging those positions from your post. You don't present it as a challenge. I think that is why such a presumptuous statement could be justifiably met with emotional replies.

Having emotions is fine.&nbsp; Being controlled by your emotions is another thing entirely.&nbsp; Let's all try and respond in a godly way.&nbsp; If you feel strongly about your beliefs be motivated by your desire to act in a way that is encouraging to Father's Image and edifying to your faith in Christ.

God bless.