Cults: group that alters the doctrine of Christ and salvation, changing the fundamental nature and message of eternity.
Sect: Sister group that agrees on essentials, but differentiates on policy, ethics, or practice.
Initially I agree with this. But then almost as quickly as I agree, I have a foreboding cloud of doubt cloud my mind. If I agree with someone about the basics of Christianity (that Jesus was fully God and Man and came to earth, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for the sins of the world and rose again the next day of his own power and lives in Heaven forever), yet they still believe that someone can loose their salvation, or that people who are engaging in certain sins like severe alcoholism or homosexuality are still fine in God's eyes, then I question their real understanding of the God they worship. Because those things are CLEARLY not ok with my Jesus.
Im not talking about once someone decided to follow Christ and the inevitable discussion on ethics. I am talking about someone claiming all the essentials of Christianity, then claiming a homosexual lifestyle is ok. This would seem to indicate 1) a lack of actual repentance, 2) a lack of understanding God's narrow way salvation, and 3) a lack of knowledge of who God really is.(therefore possibly negotiating their actual salvation- how can you be saved if you dont know God?)
For example, my grandmother attends the Methodist church. My grandfather and her decided to continue attending that church even after they were saved one out of tradition but two to be a witness of God's actual saving grace in its entirety. But the Methodist church believes a homosexual lifestyle is just fine to God, since he judges the heart and not the lifestyle. Well there are clear scripture that teach that homosexuality is wrong. (and included in those same passages is the equal condemnation of lying, bitterness, hate, etc) So if someone claims to love God and serve him, how do they condone homosexuality? In addition, the Methodist church often fails to emphasize or even mention repentance and a changed lifestyle after salvation. Here is my deal: if they dont mention repentance (since we are new creatures), then I question the full understanding of the gospel message. It is "take up your cross and follow me;" it's "flee the evil desires of youth..."
Therefore, I would not classify people who hold to the Methodist teaching's to be in the same "body of Christ" as I am. Not because I have somehow exalted myself over them, but by simple definition of the body of Christ: being united with Jesus Christ and his eternal gift of salvation. If you preach a gospel devoid of repentance, then it is not Christ's gospel, and therefore not in his body. So the Methodist church would therefore be a cult: their doctrine changes eternity.
The Presbyterian church: Again, when considering the doctrine of the church some key elements suggest an untrue picture of salvation, and mar the issue of eternity. This is a direct quote from the PCUSA website on the Theology of Jesus:
"He died, was buried, and was resurrected by God. For Christians, this resurrection is God's most amazing miracle and proof that Jesus was indeed divine....we call Jesus "Lord" because he has saved us from the power of death and the power of sin and because, through his sacrifice, we are able to know the fullness of God's love for us."
(for full explanation of Presbyterian theology go here:)
http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-jesus.htm
Sounds like Jesus is not equal to God, but just a heavenly creature, or a lesser God. Jesus MUST be equal in power and might to God the Father. Different roles does not equal different levels of power. God raising Jesus from the dead is partially true, but not complete. Since Jesus was God, he riased himself from the grave. It is key to understand that Jesus raised himself since this is what proves his power over sin. Since he was fully man, he needed to conquor death himself to show that he could not only die for sin, but riase back to life. If the power to resurect was just from God the father, God the Father could have used any being that has not sinned. He could have used an angel; a being that had the capability to sin but had not sinned. The God the Father could have aided the angel in living a perfect life and riased him up. Or God the Father could have used any new born baby and helped him live a perfect life. The CRUTIAL element is that Jesus is God himself. Without this, the gospel message is incomplete.
If Jesus was not God, then he was a liar or a lunatic. Either way the entire bible is discredited. Which would negate salvation, and the entire Christian faith. One might argue that not believing Jesus was God still might allow a person to understand the gospel story. Potentially; but if a person believes that he himself is a sinful person and God provided a way of salvation, but they believe that salvation was an angel being sacrificed, then that is NOT the gospel of salvation as claimed in scripture. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) Jesus MUST be considered fully God, not just fully divine or the son of God, for the Christian, biblical message of salvation to be true. And since Jesus says "believe in me and be saved," the doctrine of Jesus not being God but just a divine being is not able to save you.
So this leads me to conclude that the Presbyterian church, though not all it's members per say, are actually a cult: their doctrine changes eternity.
This blog has gone longer than intended, but I'd like to quickly highlight the Pentecostal/charismatic denomination. I am a fully expressive worshiper. I sing, move, raise my hands, clap, almost dance, and shout in celebration of my risen savior. One might categorise my style as "charismatic." Yet, in definition that is not true. The key being I do not believe scripture teaching one must speak in tongues to prove salvation. Here in the south (and especially at Liberty) I have heard these terms thrown out more in reference to worship style than actual theology. Which bothers me because when someone suggests we unite under Christ, and they include Pentecostal/charismatic churches, I dont agree. Mainly because I think requiring a person to speak in tongues is adding to salvation. It does not say believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and speak in tongues and be saved. So that would also alter eternity if a person is not trusting only on grace alone to save them, but some sort of work that they do through speaking in tongues. Again, based on definition, I would say, cult.
Please understand this is not an attack upon different denominations. I personally refuse to claim a denomination since the stigma and reputation each holds. I claim only to be a follower of Christ Jesus and him crucified. Plus, I have not found a denomination who's doctrine is 100% what I believe. Even the baptist church is not as "reformed" as I would hold scripture claims we should be. This being said, I do think legit children of God attend many churches who do not preach what their denomination claims. I attend a Baptist church in Lynchburg that is way more reformed than most Baptist churches. I am not out to "get" denominations.
But I do wish to bring to light the idea that many churches that we want to include in the family of God may in fact be compose of many people under the misguidance of their salvation. Do you realise what this could mean? THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ACROSS AMERICA UNDER A FALSE IDEA OF TRUE SALVATION.
I honestly had to pause after typing that last line. What a HORROR! I honestly believe we need another Reformation. With free will and America pushing us farther away from the truth of scripture, I cringe at the wrath of God that could consume us all.
I have enjoyed this class and I am seriously considering Seminary after I finish my grad school. I have been pondering the idea ever since I was old enough to understand a school existed just to train believers to know God more. You will most likely be hearing from me again in the next 2-6 years :)
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Day Two: Logical Fallacies and the canon
Discussing the different Fallacies was vasty interesting. I remember most of this from GEND, but the differences were clearly explained today.
The one argument that I think distracts me the most is the Non-sequitur- a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. Most of the other fallacies are definitely used, but I want to jump in and correct and defend when someone tries to take my words and spin them incorrectly. Which totally distracts from the initial point.
The creation of the canon was also very interesting. That is one argument that I have had very little experience in defending. Mostly because for me, it matters not who decided. Since all scripture is God breathed, and therefore living and true, I'm pretty sure God's ok with the Bible's collection of books. AND Im pretty sure he worked through men to have it include what he wanted it to include. Im sure he's not in heaven going "dope! they forgot 1 and 2 Barnabas!" But that being said, the historical evidence to show that the compilation we do have in our bible not only makes spiritual sense but logical human sense through dating and context, was helpful to know.
The one argument that I think distracts me the most is the Non-sequitur- a conclusion that does not follow from the premise. Most of the other fallacies are definitely used, but I want to jump in and correct and defend when someone tries to take my words and spin them incorrectly. Which totally distracts from the initial point.
The creation of the canon was also very interesting. That is one argument that I have had very little experience in defending. Mostly because for me, it matters not who decided. Since all scripture is God breathed, and therefore living and true, I'm pretty sure God's ok with the Bible's collection of books. AND Im pretty sure he worked through men to have it include what he wanted it to include. Im sure he's not in heaven going "dope! they forgot 1 and 2 Barnabas!" But that being said, the historical evidence to show that the compilation we do have in our bible not only makes spiritual sense but logical human sense through dating and context, was helpful to know.
Day Three - Inherited sin? Jesus with two natures?
Day three.
I am definitely enjoying this class. I was very skeptic since my last theology class was so great and I was able to get deeply involved in each and every discussion. I did not realise to what degree I am willing to fight for truth. Theology excites me. Not for the sake of arguing, but for the discovery of the hidden meanings of truth.
There can be varying viewpoints on theological issues. But I think some of the theological issues we allow people to hold differing opinions on, the bible has a pretty clear stance on it. It seems to me that by allowing for "different theological viewpoints" we have opened the door for man's own viewpoint to cloud his mind. I have spoken to many people over the course of the last year I have been at Liberty. Most, if not all of them, claim to be followers of Christ. And I have been AMAZED at the lack of spiritual grounds for their beliefs. One girl I spoke to said that what she thought on a certain topic was what she was going to think, no matter what anything else said, just because it seemed to horrible for the opposite to be true.
One issue that I have noticed a bunch of people overlooking scripture on is the area of divorce. I understand that issues that are more personal in nature are going to have a higher degree of variation in opinion; it is hard to remove personal bias from conclusion. But the bible has specific passages that outline what God says for divorce. So I don't care what has happened to you, your parents, or your kids. God says what God says and that is the final word. Now there are a few passages that can seem to say different things, so I would hold that there could be one or two biblical supported conclusions. But saying I think this because I think this, is totally unscriptural.
One of the key Theological issues that I have struggled with recently is the detail of original sin. Original sin being manifested in the marring of the original likeness of God in created man. When Adam and Eve chose to turn from God and sin, the likeness of God was not removed, but changed in man. He no longer had a holy nature that allowed him to live with God but a sin nature that now sepparated him from a heavely eternity. So all the children that followed Adam were born into this sin nature, and could not chose to do anything but sin. And since God must redeem each person from their sin through the choice to call him Lord and Savior, only the blood of Jesus can change a man's heart to the holy nature required to enter heaven.
So, if man is born with a sin nature, not through just the man or just the woman, but through the very definition of being human, then when Jesus was born, he would have been born with a sin nature. Since he was human, he was born with all human capabilities. But since he was God, he was also with all diety capabilities. The question lies here: does sin nature require that you therefore sin?
The way I seem to best logicaly and biblicaly answer this question is this: BECASUE Jesus was God, he was able to not only die on the cross and be the human sacrifice needed to save the world, but the credentials for him to even claim to be the only sacrifice was proved by his ability to fight against the sin nature that tried to consume him for 30+ years when he was a man on earth. To me, that is just like God. He would not only come to earth to die as God, but also go one step farther and take on ALL of man's likeness and further prove his power. He doesnt need to do anything for us. But he IS love, so it seems to be in his God nature to go above and beyond.
If Jesus was not filled with a sin nature, like many people I have spoken with argue, then he still served his purpose by coming to earth. He still lived a perfect life- IF it is only in sin that a person is condemned. But if it is in sin nature that we are condemned to death, like those that lived without the law still died, then how could Jesus have a sin nature?
Bottom line: since there is no punishment with no law, but still death, can we infer that something still separates us from God even if we dont ever sin? Yes, Jesus never sinned. But since he was fully God and man, woldnt it stand to say that could have had TWO natures? A sin nature as a man, and a spirit nature as God.
So then when he died, his sin nature was gone since he died like all men must. And he was able to be a sacrifice for all men since he was perfect. But since he was God, he was able to enter heaven since he already had a spirit nature also. Our sin nature than kills us was replaced with his spirit nature...
I think I am talking myself into circles...ok. Time for coffee and ice cream.
I am definitely enjoying this class. I was very skeptic since my last theology class was so great and I was able to get deeply involved in each and every discussion. I did not realise to what degree I am willing to fight for truth. Theology excites me. Not for the sake of arguing, but for the discovery of the hidden meanings of truth.
There can be varying viewpoints on theological issues. But I think some of the theological issues we allow people to hold differing opinions on, the bible has a pretty clear stance on it. It seems to me that by allowing for "different theological viewpoints" we have opened the door for man's own viewpoint to cloud his mind. I have spoken to many people over the course of the last year I have been at Liberty. Most, if not all of them, claim to be followers of Christ. And I have been AMAZED at the lack of spiritual grounds for their beliefs. One girl I spoke to said that what she thought on a certain topic was what she was going to think, no matter what anything else said, just because it seemed to horrible for the opposite to be true.
One issue that I have noticed a bunch of people overlooking scripture on is the area of divorce. I understand that issues that are more personal in nature are going to have a higher degree of variation in opinion; it is hard to remove personal bias from conclusion. But the bible has specific passages that outline what God says for divorce. So I don't care what has happened to you, your parents, or your kids. God says what God says and that is the final word. Now there are a few passages that can seem to say different things, so I would hold that there could be one or two biblical supported conclusions. But saying I think this because I think this, is totally unscriptural.
One of the key Theological issues that I have struggled with recently is the detail of original sin. Original sin being manifested in the marring of the original likeness of God in created man. When Adam and Eve chose to turn from God and sin, the likeness of God was not removed, but changed in man. He no longer had a holy nature that allowed him to live with God but a sin nature that now sepparated him from a heavely eternity. So all the children that followed Adam were born into this sin nature, and could not chose to do anything but sin. And since God must redeem each person from their sin through the choice to call him Lord and Savior, only the blood of Jesus can change a man's heart to the holy nature required to enter heaven.
So, if man is born with a sin nature, not through just the man or just the woman, but through the very definition of being human, then when Jesus was born, he would have been born with a sin nature. Since he was human, he was born with all human capabilities. But since he was God, he was also with all diety capabilities. The question lies here: does sin nature require that you therefore sin?
The way I seem to best logicaly and biblicaly answer this question is this: BECASUE Jesus was God, he was able to not only die on the cross and be the human sacrifice needed to save the world, but the credentials for him to even claim to be the only sacrifice was proved by his ability to fight against the sin nature that tried to consume him for 30+ years when he was a man on earth. To me, that is just like God. He would not only come to earth to die as God, but also go one step farther and take on ALL of man's likeness and further prove his power. He doesnt need to do anything for us. But he IS love, so it seems to be in his God nature to go above and beyond.
If Jesus was not filled with a sin nature, like many people I have spoken with argue, then he still served his purpose by coming to earth. He still lived a perfect life- IF it is only in sin that a person is condemned. But if it is in sin nature that we are condemned to death, like those that lived without the law still died, then how could Jesus have a sin nature?
Bottom line: since there is no punishment with no law, but still death, can we infer that something still separates us from God even if we dont ever sin? Yes, Jesus never sinned. But since he was fully God and man, woldnt it stand to say that could have had TWO natures? A sin nature as a man, and a spirit nature as God.
So then when he died, his sin nature was gone since he died like all men must. And he was able to be a sacrifice for all men since he was perfect. But since he was God, he was able to enter heaven since he already had a spirit nature also. Our sin nature than kills us was replaced with his spirit nature...
I think I am talking myself into circles...ok. Time for coffee and ice cream.
Men and Women's role in the wedding day?
To a man: Concerning the wedding: SHUT UP. The bride has been dreaming of this day her entire life. She has been talking to her mom since she was a little girl about her colors, designs, etc. Your job is to stand where she tells you to stand, wear what she tells you to wear, and to do whatever she tells you to do
To the women: Concerning the wedding night: SHUT UP. The groom has been thinking of this day since he was a little boy. He talked to his dad about what this night would be like. Your job is to stand where he tells you to stand, wear what he tells you to wear, and do whatever he tells you to do.
That my friends was Theology 201 today.
Of course there is more that happened today in class. But ask me about the class, and that is all I remember initially!
the official assignment blog is coming later..but I knew "you guys' " would appreciate this :)
To the women: Concerning the wedding night: SHUT UP. The groom has been thinking of this day since he was a little boy. He talked to his dad about what this night would be like. Your job is to stand where he tells you to stand, wear what he tells you to wear, and do whatever he tells you to do.
That my friends was Theology 201 today.
Of course there is more that happened today in class. But ask me about the class, and that is all I remember initially!
the official assignment blog is coming later..but I knew "you guys' " would appreciate this :)
Monday, May 24, 2010
Day One: Prolegomena
Well today we began theo 201 with Dr.Caner at Liberty University. I took theo 202 as an intensive so I am thinking this class should be similar. And awesome, we dont thave class Friday AND we have a hour and a half lunch. sweet.
So Prolegomena: what IS it? Im confused. Google defined it as: "a preliminary discussion, especially a formal essay introducing a work of considerable length or complexity." hmmm. Class today was more setting the stage so we all know we are coming from the same perspective on Christianity.
It is so true that different people use the same words but with totally different meanings. I did have a discussion with a Mormon at the beginning of the spring semester who used very similar language as I did as he explained Mormonism to me. I had already studied it a few years back, so I was confused when he sounded like a christian in his language. I pointed out things I knew were true that the Mormon church used to do or still did, and he denied them. It really seems to be a religion of brain washing to a degree...
Religion was defined as "a set of rites and rituals by which men seek the favor or stop the wrath of a god or gods. So true. The blessed amazing thing about our Savior is his love. His justice allows for his love to be so awesome.
I am looking forward to reading the books assigned, especially about Calvinism. Though I agree that Jesus did not die only for the elect, most of Calvinism I agree with. We deserve nothing and are nothing. All we have been given is from NOTHING I could ever do, and left to my own choice, I would not choose God. I was a slave to my sin. I COULD NOT choose life; I was unable to do so. So I get a wee bit defensive when people bash Calvinism.
But we shall see :)
So Prolegomena: what IS it? Im confused. Google defined it as: "a preliminary discussion, especially a formal essay introducing a work of considerable length or complexity." hmmm. Class today was more setting the stage so we all know we are coming from the same perspective on Christianity.
It is so true that different people use the same words but with totally different meanings. I did have a discussion with a Mormon at the beginning of the spring semester who used very similar language as I did as he explained Mormonism to me. I had already studied it a few years back, so I was confused when he sounded like a christian in his language. I pointed out things I knew were true that the Mormon church used to do or still did, and he denied them. It really seems to be a religion of brain washing to a degree...
Religion was defined as "a set of rites and rituals by which men seek the favor or stop the wrath of a god or gods. So true. The blessed amazing thing about our Savior is his love. His justice allows for his love to be so awesome.
I am looking forward to reading the books assigned, especially about Calvinism. Though I agree that Jesus did not die only for the elect, most of Calvinism I agree with. We deserve nothing and are nothing. All we have been given is from NOTHING I could ever do, and left to my own choice, I would not choose God. I was a slave to my sin. I COULD NOT choose life; I was unable to do so. So I get a wee bit defensive when people bash Calvinism.
But we shall see :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
