Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed

Thanks for the explanation. I'd had a vague idea that Dominion theology insists that the whole world is to become Christian by the time Christ returns, which I don't see in scripture, but the long work of making disciples of all nations is nothing but scriptural. I've many times argued that eye for an eye was a curb on reckless overpunishment, without knowing the argument had connections with any particular theology.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-11-2005 01:49 PM

Here's my attempt at an answer.The Old Testament is a report on God's dealings with the nation of Israel, which He chose to represent Him in the world and to be the keeper of His word and the progenitors of the Messiah who would save the world from sin. As a theocracy they were to obey Him as a nation in all things. Their laws are true laws that do reflect the mind of God, though Jesus perfected them, but we no longer have a theocracy and fallen human nature is incapable of obeying them anyway.What a heretic is cannot be determined outside the knowledge of God Himself, and although true Christians have the spiritual discernment to recognize them, that recognition is imperfect. It's no longer a simple matter of knowing a heretic by his sacrificing to a literal idol on a literal hill. There are always other Christians with other views and beyond that, there will always be challenges to any Christian view by the less discerning views of fallen humanity. Christians are also not a theocracy in a position to enact laws in this world, but scattered throughout the pagan nations just as the Jews are. Therefore, in more than one way it is wrong to punish heretics. To live at peace in this world now, we need laws that protect all beliefs from punishment.The laws of pagan nations are given by God too, only indirectly, and are not nearly so strict as laws given to His theocracy, because pagans cannot and do not even attempt to obey God as He has presented Himself in the Bible, and God tolerates their disobedience until Jesus comes again, just as He patiently tolerates the disobedience of each of us individually in the hope that we might yet turn to Him and be saved and learn to obey through His power.However, it is quite right to understand those commands and laws given to the Israelites as a picture of how God Himself will ultimately deal with those who transgress, and take them as a warning.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-11-2005 07:25 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-11-2005 07:28 PM

That number is famously inflated and very misleading, as it counts all merely governmentally independent bodies as separate, thereby falsely implying doctrinal separation. Baptist churches for instance are often independent churches and they are counted separately although they don't differ doctrinally from other Baptist churches. Also, the differences in doctrine among the vast majority of all the Protestant churches are minor as they agree on the main points.It took a while but I finally located the discussion of this in my own files that I'd bookmarked a couple years ago. Google has pages of sites that simply perpetuate the fiction of massive doctrinal division, and I couldn't find this one anywhere in their list. The number has apparently recently settled down to 22,000 but it's been both lower and higher: In any case, the New Testament writers report crucial arguments over doctrine, warn about wolves in sheep's clothing, identify the gnostic heresy, admonish the churches to avoid futile disagreements and the like; and Jesus in Revelation identifies the false doctrine of the Nicolaitians and the false teachings of the "Jezebel" -- all of which implies at least as much doctrinal confusion as we have today. I like the sound of that, certainly, but I suspect Irenaeus is making a simple point about the basics of the faith, which can honestly be said of many of today's thousands of separate denominations as well, that despite the minor disagreements we ARE of one heart, mind and soul on the basics of the faith. I am in a church I chose because the preaching is the best I've found anywhere, but that doesn't mean I consider a couple dozen other churches I've visited in my area to be teaching a false gospel. I have problems with many of their emphases but I know them to believe what I believe on the basics and therefore to be Christians. I agree that the American church in particular is desperately in need of revival and reformation, but I'm not going to accept this blanket condemnation. The divisions are, as I said above, minor but inflated to please who-knows-what enemy of Christianity (and I'd add that when groups like yours criticize the other churches and go off to found yet another attempt to recover the supposedly lost truths of the early church you are simply contributing to the problem of division you are criticizing -- because that is exactly how many of these divisions occur.) I think we should be able to discuss the problems without applying such a broad brush of condemnation and relying on such misleading statistics. Um, I think you may have misunderstood my point. I've encountered these individualists mostly at EvC and most of them I don't consider Christian at all, it's just that the term is now co-opted by anybody who takes a liking to it these days. Maybe we should avoid the statistical stuff and the blanket criticism then and just discuss the particular attitudes you have in mind as I just don't see the entire landscape of Christianity as you do. Um, the Mormons have that in some sense and they like to boast of it too. How are we going to recognize the unity and love that Christ was talking about if people who think God is a finite human being who became "god" and they expect to be able to do the same and be just like him in the end, appear to have it? Perhaps you are right, but I'm not yet convinced. And if groups may have a kind of loving togetherness that is based on a false doctrine would that not matter to you? If it's really Christ's message -- and if it lasts beyond a few years of the heady experience of all new experiments with community. Much of what you've said seems to be Christ's message, some I'm not so sure of. I can identify such a lack of love, including in myself, certainly, but you aren't yet talking about it in a way that convinces me we're thinking of the same thing.I'm with a Tozer when he criticizes the church, or a Schaeffer, those who criticize from within the church, and in fact that's the job of all good preachers in a way, but I'm rather leery of those who criticize it from outside. Please explain.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-12-2005 03:00 PM

While I can agree that today's Christians may be exerting far too much energy in the service of mere earthly governmental concerns, when we should be sticking to the gospel itself in the hope of rescuing many into the spiritual Kingdom of God, being salt and light in the world means that we do have a responsibility to work against the corruptions fallen humanity is so likely to institute to its own harm. That is, fallen humanity may for instance see nothing wrong with homosexual marriage, but since Christians do, and since we know that God will punish a nation for such a thing, as He makes clear in the Old Testament, it is a responsibility of ours to do what we can to keep benighted humanity from committing suicide as it were by supporting and approving of such a law. That's a small version of loving our neighbor as ourselves I think.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-12-2005 03:27 PM

I've supported the OT more strictly than either Randman or Truthlover in this thread. TL even pretty much dismissed it as completely inapplicable in our day as it has been superseded completely by the spiritual Kingdom of God. Funny you'd pick on me.That said, certainly the OT is the word of God, but there are many ways the NT makes it clear that we are in a different relation to the OT now. The vision of Peter that taught him that Gentile foods are no longer forbidden for instance. Paul's teaching that circumcision does not apply to the Gentiles. The Jerusalem church's willingness to reduce the requirements for the Gentiles to just a few rather than imposing the entire Law on them.The NT also teaches that the Jews of the day didn't fully understand the OT, and current Judaism certainly doesn't. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount for instance makes it clear that the Law was not a matter of outward obedience but judges the innermost part of the soul -- not merely the avoidance of overt adultery or murder, but now the sinfulness of even a lust or an anger in the heart is shown to be the real meaning of the Law. The Letter to the Hebrews also teaches the Jewish believers about the spiritual meanings of the OT, showing for instance that all the holy men of the OT were saved by faith and not by works.

The split between Protestants and Catholics is huge and irreconcilable according to many, but most on that list are MINOR. I'm not sure what all are included in that number, but most of the differences do not affect the major points about what salvation is as the split between the Catholics and Protestants does. At least kindly note that 37 is quite a difference from the 22,000 claimed by Truthlover. Sometimes that even happens, denominations will merge. However, again, usually the differences are not great enough for one denomination to regard another as completely beyond the pale. But on MINOR points for the most part. That list doesn't even reflect the REAL schisms in the church, such as between conservative and liberal interpretations of the Bible, but if it did the minor points would fall away and we'd end up with even fewer Protestant denominations than 21. Yes, about such things as whether the church should be governed by bishops (Episcopal) or a presbytery (Presbyterian) etc. WHAT the disagreement is about is the important thing and again most of the differences that go back to the origin of the denominations are not crucially important. And again, what IS crucially important these days is whether a church regards the Bible as the inerrant word of God or not, and that isn't even reflected on those lists. Again, I don't care if I'm wrong about a church being governed by elders versus bishops. MOST of those 37 I expect I would agree with on the important points about things like who God is, how we are saved, and how we are to live the Christian life. The list needs to be reconceived if it is to have any usefulness. This has nothing to do with the Bible but with fallen human nature. {AbE: Even Christians with their regenerated spirit still have a lot of the old flesh left that makes mistakes with the Bible.} What a relief it will be when it's finally all over. Double nonsense back. We are FALLEN, and the Bible says so. His Creation was perfect until human beings disobeyed and became sinners, and His Bible reports the whole story accurately. Well, you're in luck as I'm a Calvinist and I don't think human free will amounts to a hill of beans. Because of the original sin that brought the Fall in Eden, we are "sinners." Our free will is like the free will of a fish in the sea that knows nothing of life on the land. We are imprisoned in one dimension of a multi dimensioned universe. We can will all kinds of things within our dimension but we can't choose to love God who belongs to another dimension, because the Fall in Eden cut us off from our ability to know that other dimension. We think we are righteous because we don't have the perspective to know we are sinners at odds with God. Only a sovereign act of God's mercy can restore us to the will to know and obey God, which otherwise we are without.He gets consistency, all right, but only from those He has redeemed from the Fall, who know Him personally as Lord and Savior.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-12-2005 06:54 PM

I've explained to you my position but you insist on telling me it's not my position, it has to be something else determined by you. At that point I figure a discussion is over. Have a good evening.

Maybe my experience is different but I've been at a combined Easter service of Vineyard, Assembly of God, Full Gospel Pentecostal and Foursquare churches, and at National Prayer Day gatherings of people from maybe not all but a whole lot of the churches in town of all denominations, at which pastors of a surprising clash of doctrines led the prayer. I've been in a Bible study at the local Episcopalian church that was attended by charismatics and Presbyterians, and one at the Presbyterian church that included them all too, including some Methodists and a stray Catholic. Similar situation at an independent Bible Church when the Bible study moved there. There does seem to be a lot of church-hopping around here, and you can find people who have spent months or years in various churches who have retained friends from them all. Maybe we're more open-minded out here in the West?This message has been edited by Faith, 12-13-2005 09:48 PM

Perhaps you are right about the unity problem. I wish you and your community the best, really hope it's what you say it is. I'd like to be part of a solid Christian community myself, probably a smaller one. I do wonder why Rose Creek doesn't present itself as Christian on its first page, but only as an "intentional community" which could be anything, and talks about childbirth as if that were its greatest concern, and various artistic endeavors. What do I expect? I guess more direct display of Jesus Christ.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-14-2005 02:19 PM

Your personal attack does not deserve an answer. And off topic too I believe. But if you can show its relevance and rewrite it with ordinary politeness you might get a response. That means you are to assume that I am honest in what I say whether you like my answser or not. That is mere civility.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-15-2005 10:47 AM

Thank you very much for rewording your post. However, there is also the problem that it is off topic. {AbE: I did ask you to show its relevance and you haven't: Message 206. This thread is for truthlover's concerns about the current state of Christianity, not for the big questions about the nature of God.The questions you are asking ARE big questions and in fact betray quite a bit of ignorance of the subject that would require a lot of discussion. If you would like to learn something about these things, I hope you will start a new topic for the purpose.
Faith.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-15-2005 07:00 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-15-2005 07:05 PM

Musta stirred YOU up, huh, old man.

You really like that word "execrable" don't you, old man? For someone who admits to knowing zip about science how do you know my science is "execrable?" The ToE is a massive delusion. People like you, who know little science but want to understand the ToE, should make a really big effort to trace the evidence for the evolutionist interpretation of any given piece of data or, say, fossil discovery. Work hard at it. Try to find the source of the data, how it was dated, etc. You will soon find yourself in a hall of mirrors with no end in sight. The ToE is a fabrication out of thin air. All the science that is mustered to justify it here, is good science in itself, but notice how it is USED, really think about how it is used, try to avoid being dazzled by the display of detailed knowledge -- it is ALL hypothetical. Creationists get answered here with science all the time, but what nobody notices is that the science is no more certain, and no less speculative than the creationists' science. It's all an amazing hoax in the end.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-16-2005 12:20 AM

Yes, thank you for defending me. I wouldn't say it rose to the level of hell you gave them -- or is that sank -- but it was a heartwarming effort, and it was appreciated.What's the title of the book?Really, I do think my suggestion is the way people should approach the ToE. Just read some report on some new discovery and notice the language it's described in. See if it actually tells you anything about the discovery or it's just a story you are forced to take on faith. Try to track down the particulars behind the story. Good luck.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-16-2005 12:46 AM

I read the thread about my short-lived adminship, not much else, and did read your defending me somewhere -- always being sure to let everyone know my science is execrable -- so it probably was there.