Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No but many in the church abandoned His Kingdom in favour of what the world could offer them as they built an institution no different than any other of man. The Way was replaced with their way.So God abandoned His Church?
That's not the case here, but I see the spirit of duress and attempted false witness is still alive and well as it was in the days of the Temple and throughout Christianity..If you go back to the early Church, there is an orthodox interpretation which even today most Christians everywhere will agree on, and those that don’t agree are from small or unusual denominations or non-denominational megachurches, who subscribe to interpretations which CF.com regards as heterodox.
That's not the case here, but I see the spirit of duress and attempted false witness is still alive and well as it was in the days of the Temple and throughout Christianity..
You must be looking in a mirror.That's not the case here, but I see the spirit of duress and attempted false witness is still alive and well as it was in the days of the Temple and throughout Christianity..
Because Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom was not a theological statement,.
The word 'Theology' is a construction of two Greek words THEOS meaning 'God' and LOGOS meaning 'Words' or 'Wisdom'. Consequently Theology is the study of, or words about, God.Because Jesus' Gospel of the Kingdom was not a theological statement,.
Jesus said 'The Kingdom of God is within you'.Jesus gave us the Gospel of the Kingdom, saying it was why He was sent. Not words about God, but words from God.
Or “among you,” which is a more likely translation. That is, his response to people looking for it to come in various ways was “it’s already here” in the person of Jesus and his people.Jesus said 'The Kingdom of God is within you'.
Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There it is!” For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.’ Luke 17:20-21 NRSV
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21 KJV
Now this is clearly a theological statement. As is, I might say, the sentence that reads "Jesus gave us the Gospel of the Kingdom, saying it was why He was sent. Not words about God, but words from God." However given our mutual assertion of the Divinity of Jesus (another theological statement) it would seem that any words from Jesus would indeed be words from God.
Why was it a mistake or mostly a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium?
Then the follow up would be:
What should the Church have done instead?
If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (John 15:29).
Given that the church and a worldly Empire were polar opposites an association would involve some form of a compromise. Jesus talked of a small gate and a narrow path to life and only a few finding it (Matthew 7:13-14), how does this gel with the idea of a Christian Empire in which everyone is superficially a Christian?
What Jesus told them to do. Preach the truth. God Bless
Would the better course be for the Church to be marginal? Completely ineffective at spreading the Gospel or news of Christ?
Does this then therefore mean no Christian can participate in the secular process?
I don't see what that has to do with Constantine.Some people would argue that is indeed what happened. I have many relatives who believe they are 'in the club' because they were skooshed with water as a baby. They have no real interest in the bible or spirituality, don't attend church with any frequency but see themselves as part of Christendom. They certainly are not Christians in any operative sense but the goalposts were changed.
I would regard that as somewhat unlikely. Were such a person to rise to the throne, I suspect the check and balances would come into play. The English Monarch is of course not the Spiritual Head of the Church of England, simply the Temporal Head. No doubt Monarchs, like all the rest of us, have flaws. Indeed as I scan a list of British Monarchs, I see no such traits as you suggest, though perhaps you are referencing Henry VIII, noted serial monogamist.Compare that with the church of England who's head is a hereditary monarch. They might land well and have a monarch with some interest in Christianity, perhaps like the present Queen, or they may land badly as in past monarchs having as the head of the Church a Spiritualist medium or serial adulterer, murderer or paedophile- a complete joke. God Bless
Some people would argue that is indeed what happened. I have many relatives who believe they are 'in the club' because they were skooshed with water as a baby. They have no real interest in the bible or spirituality, don't attend church with any frequency but see themselves as part of Christendom. They certainly are not Christians in any operative sense but the goalposts were changed.
No- some would argue that the issue is how much the secular process dominates the church, once the church is in bed with the secular that's what happens. I am sure there have been several presidents in the USA who were saved and became president, that does not mean that the United States government controls the Southern Baptist Convention. It's possible for the highest magistrate in the country to be a Christian and do a lot of good without having a State Church.
Compare that with the church of England who's head is a hereditary monarch. They might land well and have a monarch with some interest in Christianity, perhaps like the present Queen, or they may land badly as in past monarchs having as the head of the Church a Spiritualist medium or serial adulterer, murderer or paedophile- a complete joke. Is that increasing the influence of the gospel- having a villain as head of a state church? The church taking King Herod as their role model instead of John. as God Bless
I suspect your relatives are ignoring the teaching of their Church.Some people would argue that is indeed what happened. I have many relatives who believe they are 'in the club' because they were skooshed with water as a baby. They have no real interest in the bible or spirituality, don't attend church with any frequency but see themselves as part of Christendom.
There will always be Christians in name only, but how does Christians giving up secular power achieve or better anyone? .
I wonder what that has to do with Constantine then? He had no influence on the decisions made by the Church, he simply provided the means whereby bishops from all over the empire could gather and defend the teaching of the Apostles. You seem to believe that Constantine changed the Church. Is that a reasonable assumption on my part?Hello Ignatius, I fear you are attacking what is referred to as a straw-man argument. I'm saying that the secular authorities should not have any power in the church. Christians should be active in the political sphere, the gospel needs to permeate society at every level. God Bless
I am not certain that this is a logical as you think it is. You seem to be suggesting that the Church should some how be exempt from the constraints of secular government, yet some how be enabled to advance it's own cause and influence. That just is not how a pluralist democracy works. Do you see this working for all sorts of religious expressions, such as Islam, Judaism, and the Klingons on the starboard bow.Hello Ignatius, I fear you are attacking what is referred to as a straw-man argument. I'm saying that the secular authorities should not have any power in the church. Christians should be active in the political sphere, the gospel needs to permeate society at every level. God Bless
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?