Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed

Well, that reply sure narrowed things down, thanks. We'll get back to the "in our place" thing later. First, though, I am NOT saying that we are not saved by Christ's blood. I am not saying that.I am saying, however, that knowing about his sacrifice is not what saves a person. As I've pointed out, the apostles never mentioned this to the lost. They proclaimed Christ, and they called for faith in him, which we've discussed pretty extensively.I think it's important for disciples to know what Christ did for them. "You know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things...but with the precious blood of the King, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet 1:18,19). According to that passage, this should cause us to fear (v. 17). There's a respect and trembling that should be caused by the great cost of our redemption.But that doesn't change the fact that the apostles proclaimed Christ, and not his death, to the lost. It doesn't change the fact that Y'shua didn't call people to believe in his death, but he called them to believe in him, leave their own life behind, and enter his.I do believe, as Paul did, that we are justified by his blood and reconciled to God by his death. However, our response is to believe in him, not just to believe in his death.His death is the source of the grace that transforms his disciples, but when we make substitutionary atonement to BE the Gospel, we are doing something different than his apostles did. And that's bad. Thank you. At least we're concerned about the same problem. I'm telling you that a good portion of the solution to that problem is to proclaim Christ in just the same way the apostles did.Let me add one cause of the problems you see. The churches of America are mostly full of unregenerate people. Not all, but they greatly outnumber disciples in every church I've ever been in, except perhaps in the occasional small house church. And I've been in a lot of churches all over the world. I've also talked to a lot of people, and that's what all of them have found, too. Not all of them would agree that those who don't live as disciples are unregenerate, like I say, but they most certainly agree that pretty much every church they've ever been in has many non-disciples and very few committed disciples.The enemy would have us believe this is the way it must be. He would have us believe that this cannot be corrected. Division, in the form of dozens of denominations in every town and perhaps hundreds in major cities, is a way of life, and the average Christian will be a nominal pew sitter. We think that at least that nominal pew sitter is sitting there hearing the Word, so this is a good thing.It's not a good thing. There is a way of life that is essential--yes, essential--to the Message. Unless disciples are encouraged or exhorted every day, then, according to Scripture, they live in constant danger of deception and the hardening of their heart (Heb 3:13).It is not an accident that where the Scriptures describe "great grace" as being on the church, it is because the disciples were of one heart and one soul and had all things in common (Acts 4:32,33). The Message has always been geared to unite the disciples into a household of faith. I am not saying this means we have to live together in the same house, but we do have to live in such a way that we are in contact with each other every day, and so that we are one heart, one soul, and meet each other's daily needs in everything.Any other lifestyle is destructive to the disciple. That one heart, one soul, and having all things in common was the ordinary lifestyle of all Christians (except missionaries, who were out creating that lifestyle for others) for a couple centuries. It's a forgotten way of life now, but you can look around and see the results of its being forgotten.The love that comes from heaven burns for togetherness. Love is like that. It compels the saints to gather and mingle and share and rejoice together in the life and love of the Spirit of God.This can't be done in the modern church setting. Everything about the modern church setting stops disciples from living the lifestyle I've just described. They would naturally gravitate toward that lifestyle of togetherness, because unity and love is a product of having the Spirit of God, but they're busy supporting this crazy system called Christianity.Worse, because so few even get to taste that lifestyle, there's no one to teach them how to live it. Bad habits, petty doctrinal issues, and not knowing the importance of unity all lead to those little house groups I mentioned dissolving.You mentioned people speaking ill of you. Try bringing disciples together as one. Even if most Christians don't know the importance of the lifestyle I've described, which is nothing else but the church, the devil does. The storm created when a church begins--one like the apostles started, a simple gathering of disciples utterly committed to Christ--that storm is amazing. Outsiders become vicious enemies spreading horrifying rumors and opposing you in every way. Insiders find it is a war to stay together.It happens every time, and mostly the new gathering doesn't survive it. In fact, it rarely puts up a very good fight, because the church, as it was known 18 to 20 centuries ago, is just forgotten. An invisible, spread out church has been preached in its place, but an invisible church with spread out disciples has very little help to offer its members.The combination of a gospel that centers on believing a fact about Christ, no matter how important that fact, and the forgetting of the church has been quite nearly fatal.May God have mercy on us.

Hi, Tl, you (the thread) are discussing who is a 'real' Christian. Therefore it was a general question to all sides.

We recognize them by their fruits. This has been discussed pretty extensively, though perhaps not in this thread. I referenced 16 verses in 1 John that talk about how to recognize a disciple or how to tell you are one. They talk about those who keep his commandments, work righteousness, and are not continually sinning. As far as telling whether you are one, he also mentions by the Spirit that God has given us.

You make many good points though I haven't had time to think it all through as carefully as it deserves and may not for a few days, depends. Funny how I've disagreed with most of your posts I've seen in the past. Well, no, I remember some older posts I did agree with very strongly, but still there were some that I couldn't agree with at all. This is just an impression at the moment as I don't recall much of the subject matter.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-09-2005 12:09 PM

I was quite happy to see your post 135 myself. I understand doctrinal differences between people who claim to be disciples. I even understand them being a big problem. I expect, however, that anyone claiming to be a disciple would be excited about going forward and excited about living in the sort of life described in Acts, which is church life as the apostles established it. I also expect it to be obvious to them that this sort of life happens rarely in the western world, and I expect them to long to do something to change that.Your post 135 at least told me that you recognize the problem and you care about it, so I was very encouraged. That's why I wrote all that I did in response to it, much of which was not directly related to what we were discussing previously.

Hope this is OK to chime in. Agreed. Too often, believers are just following a pattern within their society, and sometimes that is all one can do outwardly, but the sense of leaving one's life behind and beginning a new life and continuing needs to be there, in heart, will, and action.At the same time, the easiest way for someone to enter into this new life is through the transformative power of realizing His love. The preaching of the gospel is not just an invitation, but taking captivity captives. When one realizes in his heart and mind what Jesus really did for him or her on the Cross, the natural response is to love the Lord back, and out of that love comes discipleship.Trying to make disciples just because we need people to be better disciples to redeem Christianity can be problematic, unless based out of a love response to Jesus' love for them. We love him because He first loved us. Yep, we are missing the doing of the sayings of Jesus and the preaching of the kingdom of God. Definitely, and in power, signs and wonders, as well as love and discipleship. That's true, but likewise many efforts at Christian community have failed and failed miserably. I think you have your community where you are with the believers you are friends with. Not that a separate community, daily meeting, praying, etc,....cannot be God, and does not happen, but it's not a strict pattern. Jesus had the disciples near him daily, and friends in Bethany too, that he did not select to travel with him as part of the ministry. That's true, but it's the grace that made the pattern more than the other way around, imho. It's true. The ministry leadership in the Church is in a lot of ways more competitive and ruthless than in business and other areas of life in that regard. It's a deplorable state.I believe with all my heart that one solution the Lord has, and this is something He immediately began to impart into me when He called me to salvation is the reestablishment of true apostles. The ministry of the true apostle is, among other things, to bring unity back to the Church. The foundation of the house, according to Paul, is the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. That's not just talking about their writings, or some sort of temporal founding, meaning to just start things off, but is more a picture of a living community from a spiritual perspective empowered with the transferable anointings that come from apostles and prophets.But here is the kicker. They need to be properly aligned with the Cornerstone. Many of those that are called, or believe they are called, to "apostolic" ministry have a vision of the apostle as some sort of glorified spiritual bishop.They miss the boat entirely. Jesus said, and I am paraphrasing, that you know worldly authority, and it's position, that you are blessed by submitting to and enjoying the presence and protection of the leaders, the princes, etc,..., but that's not how it will be among you.In other words, look at the way athority is in the military, in government, in business,and the world. That's not spiritual authority. Some worldly leadershio skills may be useful for organizational authority, helping motivate people, get them together, etc,....but the spiritual authority Jesus was talking about is completely different. To rule over in the sense of having an authority within a spiritual dimension, which is what real apostles are called to, is not organizational leadership qualities.It makes on servant of all, and sometimes despised of men. It's no accident most of Paul's churches he founded rejected him. They were already going astray within his lifetime, and it's no accident most of Jesus' disciples deserted him either, not just at the Cross (for their lives), but prior. The apostles are "last of all."Christianity, or a version of it, will never be reformed totally without the restoration of this office and the abandonment of overesteeming worldly leadership principles.

I'm sure this is what you believe. This is what most Christians believe. However, this is not what the apostles did. They called people to repent because Christ was Lord, not because of what Christ did for them on the cross. As I've pointed out repeatedly, in a dozen sermons, some short and some long, in Acts, not once is a lost person told about what Y'shua did for them on the cross. It's one of those cases where the apostles' silence on the topic is deafening.Paul's proclamation in Acts 17:30,31 is typical of the other 11 places in Acts. "God...now commands all men everywhere to repent, because he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the Man he has determined."I understand your reasoning. I understand that's it been tradition to believe what you said for about 500 years. However, it's not what the apostles did. So they don't agree with you that this is the way to convert people.And their converts did much better than Protestant converts. It is true that we love him, because he first loved us. But obviously, the apostles didn't think that they needed to create that love by explaining the cross. The fact that the Lord of everything was inviting them to become his disciple was love enough for the apostles to preach.And I am recommending making disciples, because that is the instruction that Y'shua gave the apostles. He didn't say, "Go out and make believers in my death, and then tell them later that I would prefer if they were my disciples, too. However, don't worry if they don't, because I died for them, anyway." No, he said, "Go into all the world and make disciples." No, it's not! Good grief, man! I understand you think this is a reasonable statement, because it's what you've been taught, and on the surface it makes sense. However, for those of us who don't believe that, the statement is as ludicrous as any statement can be, because millions--no, billions--of people are proving that statement wrong every day. By my own survey of several thousand people who believe that Y'shua died for them on the cross, about 3% could be called disciples. 97% of them don't have the "natural response" to love the Lord back. Well, here you're agreeing with me. If it were the "natural response" to love him back when people heard about the cross, then the doing of the sayings of Jesus would also happen naturally, because those who love him keep his commandments. Yes, they have, because community by itself is not the answer. Only a community of disciples, who know the value of unity and the need for daily exhortation are going to put the effort in to overcome the incredible resistance of the enemy to a real church forming.The Gospel must first be preached, and disciples created, before community can be of benefit. Community does not create disciples. The love of disciples "naturally" creates community, because they love each other with a love from God, and they watch over each other to the point of sharing all their possessions if any other disciple has need. That's fine. I was careful not to say community was necessary. I did say that a disciple needs--must have--daily encouragement and exhortation. That's a normal life as well as a need for a disciple, and whatever lifestyle changes are necessary to make that happen, the disciple should do, because all that matters to a disciple is the will of God, not his own life, livelihood, or will. I agree with you that the more important point is that grace creates the pattern of love and sharing. However, grace thrives where disciples are together in love, because grace was always meant to rest on the church. I agree with this. A true apostle needs a letter of approval. It comes written on human hearts, and it can't be faked. He will have disciples who show the work of the Lord in them. When he is questioned, he ought to do what Paul did and point to disciples he created (because that's what apostles do; make disciples) who are his letter.I think that would solve the other problems with false apostles that you mentioned. Well, I agree with the point you were making around this about authority, but I can't agree with this. Some people in some of Paul's churches rejected him. History, however, says that churches like Rome, Ephesus, and Corinth stayed faithful to Paul in the long run, because he laid a good foundation in them. Rome and Ephesus especially were strengths to churches around them and in faraway places, though Rome had a constant problem with bishops with overblown egos.Philippi came to be known as John's church, not Paul's, but it stayed a strong and good church, too. Paul's legacy was very strong after his death. Christianity, as in the system, will never agree to be reformed, so it never will. I suspect we agree on that. Apostles raising up bodies of believers will do it out of the current system, because they'll have to. But I agree that apostles are needed. Nothing in the kingdom is done without a gift from God, and it is the apostles' job to build churches.There is a change going on, though. It is a huge number of people who are hearing "come out of her and be separate" and applying that command to current churchianity. Something's happening. We have some opinions about what that is, but for something like Rose Creek Village (the community I'm part of) to have happened in the current situation is the work of God. What else he's doing elsewhere, I'm really not sure of, but I believe that God himself was more tolerant of Christianity even 50 years ago. Not now, though. Disciples, or any of those with an ear, are leaving in droves. (Well, maybe they're not. Maybe so many have already left, that there's not many left to leave.)It is high time for them to have something to come into and not just something to come out of.

This is a very interesting point of view I have to admit. My own experience is that as soon as I believed in the existence of the God of the Bible I was in love with that God. I read psalm 119 and fell in love with the God whose Law inspired such adoration from David. It was some time after that before I understood what Jesus had done. I can't say that I've ever felt moved to love by the knowledge of His work on the cross. I've often felt guilty and doubted my salvation because of this lack. I believe it, certainly, but it has never had the power to engender love. I love God simply because He is lovable and that alone inspired me to give my whole life to Him. Unfortunately over the years I've lost that inspiration and been futilely trying to get it back. I know that His grace is required in order for me to love Him at all but that is theoretical knowledge. This I'm not sure of. Seems to me the Puritans have a powerful record of inspiring such converts. There are many who write convincingly of the deep love they personally have felt in response to the cross. Randman said "when they realize in their heart." It doesn't happen for those who only have an intellectual grasp of the idea. Certainly many hear the gospel who don't respond to it. Parable of the seed. I like this picture a great deal but don't know how to assess it yet. Hard to see a way to bring this about. I have a big problem with this idea of apostles beyond the original twelve. The charismatic Kansas City Prophets with their emphasis on contemporary apostles have gone off in wrong directions it seems to me. If we are all disciples, all priests, we don't have to bring up this concept of apostles.You are right that people have been escaping from the churches for years, because of their capitulation to the world, but in my case the exodus was from the charismatic movement so anything that brings back the errors of that movement, such as the emphasis on apostles, is not going to be a solution for me. In many cases the refugees remain outside the churches and don't find a solution to the problem. I eventually found a church where I like the preaching a great deal because it is not the soft mushy worldly "churchianity" at all, but there is still something deeply lacking. 90% of that may be my own fault however.{AbE: There is a BIG risk in this discussion of overlooking differences in how we use words. "Churchianity" for instance is used by many in many different ways. It is used to condemn all Christianity by nonChristians for one thing.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 10:10 AM

That's not entirely true. Peter does not expound on the Atonement on the day of Pentecost, but he does preach how they crucified Jesus, and how they pricked in their heart over that. So the apostles preached Christ as Lord and Saviour. Paul writes: And: Both Paul and Peter greatly emphasized the power of God, healings, prophetic signs and wonders, and miracles. Both preached Christ crucified and resurrected, but when Paul talks of Christ and Him crucified, and the wisdom of God in that, it seems to me he is including the atonement in there.So there could be slightly different approaches among different people, but the same core message. I agree the Lordship of Christ is primary, but I think the conversion process, either initially or immediately thereafter, includes a strong sense of being beloved, of God's love, and how that was expressed through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I beleive the Bible supports this view, moreover.

Look, I don't think we're far off, but you are greatly misreading me. Brother, I was not taught that by man, but by Jesus Christ, and I am relating how it worked for me. Sure, when I was aware of the holiness of God, I was in fear and trembling, but when I was illuminated to the meaning of the Cross and His great love for me, I could think of nothing but to follow Him. The decision was made because how could I refuse God after He did so much for me, stepped into my shoes so to speak. I recall that as I pondered this a week or so after deciding to follow Jesus, that it could all be a waste of time and I would go to hell anyway since I did not think I could quit certain habits. I did not have anyone to really explain things to me at that time and had some misconceptions.But my approacj was sink or swim, I'm going for it. To turn away from His love would have been unthinkable, and I have noted that when believers tend turn away, that sense of God's love and presence with them has already faded. As that is maintained, there is turning towards God, not away, "for the love of Christ contrains us."Now, that's not all there is, and certainly one needs to know the fear of God and many things really, but it is fundamental, and I doubt anyone stays a disciple for too long without knowing and receiving the love of God. It's not a recent message that cropped up as some fad. It's the Bible, and the truth, just as much as anything you are saying. That's largely because there are levels of awareness. Jesus said Himself that "they know not what they do" about the Pharissees, and he earlier upbraided them harshly as if they should have and did know, but they only partly know things, and people turn from God when that awareness is low. It's in the mind, but the heart is darkened deep down. Exactly, it comes from the love the disciples have for one another. Not many have stepped up to this level. At one time, we were in a group, and led a group really, that walked in this, and want to be at that level now, and are in some ways, the willingness to lay down one's lives, etc,....At the same time, I wouldn't say we're meeting daily together in different ways, as in the past, but part of that is moving somewhere different and having a large family and meeting daily with our kids and their responsibilities.Paul mentions that they came together once a week for fellowship. SO daily meetings are not always the norm, although when you live your life with friends that are disciples, there is a lot of informal exhortation and prayer. OK, I guess my previous paragraph was unnecessary. To be honest, I think right now in my own life the discipleship process of making disciples and being in a group making disciples rather than just a church is a little weak, but sometimes you need to hear the Lord's leading too, and let Him show you the next step. Maybe but false apostles make disciples too, and sometimes the disciples of true apostles turn away to false apostles as some of Paul's churches did. I think we need to focus on the sayings of Jesus, every message if you would, and do them, and one of them deals with the difference in worldly organizational authority and leadership versus spiritual authority and leadership, and we need to teach and preach it like anything else. Not saying everyone turned from him, but Paul does write that "all that be in Asia turned against him." He did have instances of whole groups of church leadership seeming to turn against him, or it seems that way, and the Corinthian church was already showing signs of being susceptible to super-apostles.Churches change sometimes. The Jerusalem church, by the way, seems filled with legalism, to a degree, by the end of Acts. I agree with that completely, and frankly am currently looking right now for something more. We were part of some things with these ideas awhile back, but there was some errors, and we also hosted a house church which actually was quite the move of God in many ways, but the Lord moved us to a different area, and we love the people in our church (a Vinyard church), but I just don't like the Seeker friendly approach. It's good for introducing people to Christ and Christianity, but it's like being on pablum or something when the deeper things of God and fellowship in those things calls.My wife loves the church, but I feel the need to stretch out for something new. We have prayer meetings and so forth among friends, and good, committed, serious Christians, but I'd like to be part of a more participatory flow every week with beleivers all free to move in the power of the Lord, and not so pent up within a traditional church structure, if you can call the Vineyard traditional. I am in business and believe that's where God wants me, but was for a long time working full-time in the ministry. A friend of mine wants me to move to help something like you are describing develop in Savannah, but I am not sure it's the Lord for me to move. I guess I am sort of in limbo, but we're raising a family and still in an early stage for business so I think not rushing the timing is probably right.Rose Creek? Where is it?

Could get in trouble. I looked up Rose Creek Village and have read some about it, good and bad. Maybe I can come visit this summer?Personally, it does not sound like the place for me since I gather it's not really as open to certain spiritual gifts, but the community aspect is something interesting. I have been part of something somewhat like that twice. Most of the time those sorts of things don't thrive as well as they could because it's based more on the headship of the leader rather than the headship of Christ (the head of every man), but maybe you guys are working it out.

It is true that it wasn't exactly His death in our place that the apostles proclaimed, but I'm not sure what to do with that information in the end. There are plenty of teachers out there these days who are correcting the trend to easy believism by preaching the Lordship of Christ, yet also preach the fundamental gospel in terms of salvation through Christ's sacrifice. I will need to think a lot more about this.I can't tell for sure if we are concerned about the same problem exactly. I did look up Rose Creek Village after Randman said he did and have to say it is very cult-like. Their own website seems to play down Christ as a matter of fact, but includes a lot that sounds pretty New-Agey to me. This is not unrecognized, however. In good churches it is preached about, and often the unregenerate are directly exhorted to come to Christ in the preaching. Also, we are told by Christ himself that the church will include both wheat and tares to the end.What is really bad, however, is that some churches actually seek the unregenerate, the "seeker-friendly" churches that intentionally water down the gospel so as not to "offend" anyone, often megachurches that are like small cities with their social services of all kinds. If you aim to please the worldly they will stay worldly. We may be having some problems here with language, but again this sort of thing is far from unknown and is often the subject of good preaching. Often in Reformed churches, by the way, Charles Finney is identified as the source of this situation which has filled the churches with the unregenerate. They are called "carnal Christians" in some circles, as if there could be any such thing. For the most part churches of different doctrines do recognize one another as Christian brothers and sisters, however, as long as the doctrines are not outside the basic confessions of faith. This is a very attractive idea, and if I hadn't looked up Rose Creek Village I would have understood it in my own way, but that community doesn't exemplify what it seems to me it should mean.I found this message board discussion about Rose Creek Village, which reflects what you say about having many enemies:http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/530.html?1129047963Unfortunately all the cults complain of having many enemies, simply because they are rightly criticized by the orthodox churches. I've noticed that cultists, such as the Mormons, justify themselves partly by exaggerating the faults of the orthodox churches, tarring them with a broad brush, quite unaware that what IS true in what they are saying is already recognized by the orthodox churches and countered there as well. {AbE: also, they play up their way of life as exemplary Christians despite the fact that their doctrine excludes them from the faith. It is true that the Mormons often live exemplary lives for instance.} Again, though there is much to agree with in what you say, there is also this misrepresentation of those who trust in Christ's death for them, who are far from merely "believing a fact about Christ."This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 11:18 AM

I don't know much about the Puritans, so it's entirely possible they did very well in this area. I know the earliest Anabaptists did, and the Puritans would very likely have been influenced by them. I was speaking generally, and I do know there are exceptions. This was concerning doing whatever is necessary to live in a situation where the disciples can be exhorted/encouraged daily. My answer would be that the way to bring this about, is to know disciples, because disciples would be willing to make this happen. Technically, you don't, because I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that you believe Paul was an apostle, and he's not one of the twelve. That's just being technical, but what about Barnabas? He's specifically said to be an apostle in Acts 14:14.I think you're right that the problem may be definitions. To me there's the twelve and Paul, who were given a special authority. However, apostle, as I see it, is a gift and an office, much like elder, prophet, or teacher. The job of an apostle is to make disciples and raise up churches. Anyone who successfully does that job is by my definition an apostle. In fact, any missionary is trying to fill the role of an apostle by my definition. Some just aren't (gifted or appointed by God), so they're not successful.It's not that big a deal, though. I know a man I consider an apostle, because he raised up Rose Creek Village. However, he doesn't use that as a title, and the word "apostle" almost never comes up. You can not use it if you want, and I can't imagine it causing a problem. Probably not. Christianity is a fundamentally flawed system, and it's pretty much "unreformable," because the children of the world outnumber disciples greatly in it. They outnumber them even worse now, because so many committed Christians have left the churches over the last twenty years or so.It may seem humble to say "90% of that may be my fault," but if it's not 90% your fault, and you stay in a system that is truly "deeply lacking," then you won't grow as you ought, and God loses a useful tool. Or at least that tool is crippled.

I've looked at this. I had to consider this, too, but the issue is not just that Y'shua was crucified, but that he was crucified for the forgiveness of sins. There is nothing in Peter's sermon in Acts 2, nor in any of the other 11 occurrences in Acts, that allows the hearers to know this. Hmm. I think the stumbling block for the Jews was that anyone hung on a tree was cursed, and for both Jews and Gentiles it was "how could a crucified criminal be the Lord of all?" That would line up with what Paul actually did and said in Acts. I think the sacrifice of Y'shua is central and important. I'm certainly not suggesting it be ignored.In fact, my complaint is not with those who would include the atonement in the Gospel. My complaint is with those who would make it be the Gospel, so that it is belief that Y'shua died for your sins that saves, rather than belief in Y'shua himself that saves. The former is a fact, the latter is a person, and that makes all the difference in the world.Can I tell you how I found out about this little-known fact in the apostles' proclamations in Acts? I was doing a radio show about 15 years ago, and I wanted to address the Gospel according to the apostles. So I bought 23 tracts from a Christian bookstore, and I outlined their main points. This was easy, because many of them were already in outline form. They lined up very well with the Evangelism Explosion outline that Dr. D. James Kennedy wrote, and with the Southern Baptists' Continuing Witness Training. Basically the outline is:I. Heaven is a free gift
II. Man is a sinner and cannot save himself
III. Jesus paid for those sins with his death
IV. Belief that his death was for you will get you to heavenYou'll probably not be shocked to be told that the apostles' outlines didn't match this. It was difficult to outline the apostles' preaching, because it was rather free-flowing. But the outline would go something like this.I. Jesus was a man from Israel
II. Jesus went about doing good, including miracles
III. Jesus was crucified by evil men
IV. Jesus rose from the dead to prove that he was chosen by God as Lord and King, and he still lives.
V. Repent and follow him.I was very surprised to find out that the apostles left out "man is a sinner and can't save himself" and "Jesus died to pay for your sins." I thought that was the central message of the Gospel, too. Since I did all this the day of the show, it was quite a scramble to be prepared to address this on the radio that evening. I did not know that's what I was going to find.

This is just too broad a brush to apply to Christianity as a whole, and despite what I can recognize as true in it, there is a complete lack of recognition that it doesn't describe quite a few churches. It's simply honest because I avoid the social aspects of the churches, partly due to past experiences, going for the preaching, which really is excellent. There is plenty of exhortation to fellowship but I don't want and don't deal well with fellowship that is just socializing, even if the people are genuine Christians, and I believe they are. {AbE: Many in the church feel they have found a real family in this church, but unfortunately there are just as many others who haven't. I've run across this in more than one church -- it is "family" for those for whom it is family, and those for whom it isn't don't really get noticed. There is no easy solution to this.}Yes, I feel a need for something that simply does not exist. I have found that I am often initially attracted to groups that are similar to yours, that promise a kind of community support I wish I had, but then I discover the cultic doctrine in them. I've had more than one rather intense online dialogue with people who are participants in Christian communities, that end up revealing their cultic nature in the end. Very attractive ideas about the Christian life that in reality end up being something else.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 12:11 PM