Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Church has lost its voice in the US

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Sorry, apostoli, I fail to see what your point is.
    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
      Sorry, apostoli, I fail to see what your point is.
      You stated "It is my view that it is the act of divorcing that is sin...".

      I suggested: if so then biblically only the husband is guilty of sin as it is he that does the act of divorcing. Biblically, a woman has no rights, she cannot divorce her husband!

      I assume your focus is exclusive to the USA. Here in OZ we have to have a wider perspective, we are an ultra multi-cultural society and our near neighbours (Indonesia & Malaysia) are Muslim (thankfully they tend to be more moderate than those from the middle east, and we have a lot of them as residents). We have "arrangements" with these nations that cover marriage, divorce and child custody when inter-marriage occurs. Basically, the wife is always up a creek without a paddle. Imu, if she divorces her husband under Australia law it isn't recognise if she goes to her husbands country. So she has to get him to divorce her...

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by apostoli View Post
        You stated "It is my view that it is the act of divorcing that is sin...".

        I suggested: if so then biblically only the husband is guilty of sin as it is he that does the act of divorcing. Biblically, a woman has no rights, she cannot divorce her husband!
        In the US either partner may initiate divorce. A man can divorce his wife, or a woman can divorce her husband. My point was whoever did the divorcing was guilty of sin. However, if I divorce my wife and remain celibate there is no adultery. Is divorce as simply separating from ones spouse actually sin in and of itself? My understanding, off hand, is that divorcing a partner (without Biblical justification) and remarrying, or simply "living in sin"*, is adultery which is the sin. Is that more clear?
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #94
          I heard a sermon yesterday where the pastor said that we (Christians) were losing our voice because we are talking about the wrong things, like spending more of our time condemning that telling the good news.
          I am become death...

          Comment


          • #95
            This reminds me a bit of the wife of a friend of mine who says that she doesn't like churches that keep talking about religion but prefers those who's message is more about the community activities they are involved with

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Ana Dragule View Post
              I heard a sermon yesterday where the pastor said that we (Christians) were losing our voice because we are talking about the wrong things, like spending more of our time condemning that telling the good news.
              A church who spends it's efforts simply condemning behavior has lost it's voice. It has given up it's voice rather than tell the truth. It does very little good to convince people to change their behavior - even if they do change behavior. The message of the Church is that of Salvation in Christ, not stop it you horrible people.
              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                A church who spends it's efforts simply condemning behavior has lost it's voice.
                That's focusing on the problem rather than the solution.

                It has given up it's voice rather than tell the truth. It does very little good to convince people to change their behavior - even if they do change behavior. The message of the Church is that of Salvation in Christ, not stop it you horrible people.
                If we give them something to change TO, we don't have to nag them about where they're coming FROM.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                  In the US either partner may initiate divorce. A man can divorce his wife, or a woman can divorce her husband. My point was whoever did the divorcing was guilty of sin. However, if I divorce my wife and remain celibate there is no adultery. Is divorce as simply separating from ones spouse actually sin in and of itself? My understanding, off hand, is that divorcing a partner (without Biblical justification) and remarrying, or simply "living in sin"*, is adultery which is the sin. Is that more clear?
                  Your opinion pretty well sums up the opinion of the RCC and more-or-less mine (given I am RCC).

                  Here in Oz, we have no fault divorces - either the husband or wife can sue for divorce - just fill out a form, get your spouse to sign it (indicating agreement), pay a court fee ($500?) and wait a few weeks. Takes a bit longer if the spouse doesn't co-sign the form and doesn't contest the divorce. I don't know what happens if the spouse contests the divorce. I guess the combatants have to appear in court and fight it out.

                  As far as I know child support is automatic and how much to pay is determined under Family Law legislation and is usually imposed on the husband (nb: child support can be imposed on someone irrespective of marital status). If someone wants to vary the payment criteria or spread it between the parents then one has to appeal to the court.

                  Not sure about spouse maintenance. Probably has to go to the courts unless there is a private agreement.
                  _____

                  I think we have to be careful about making proclamations about sin. Did Abraham sin when he married his sister Sarah? (incest today is considered a sin). When he had sex with Sarah's slave and pro-created Ishmael, did he sin? (Even though Sarah suggested it, today that would have been considered adultery or at least Polyamory (the latter being illegal in many a country). Jewish tradition tells us Abraham had many wives, he was a polygamist (the latter being illegal in many a country). Like most if not all of the patriarchs, Abraham was a rampant adulterer, and therefore by your definition totally a serial sinner of the worse type, and yet it was to Abraham that YHWH appeared as a man (Gen 18) and considered him to be His friend.

                  Shall we now review King David. Someone who was not only an adulterer but one who arranged the murder of a woman's husband to cover up his liaison, and yet YHWH made him sovereign over His people...

                  Imu, "sin" is falling short of God's standards. Apparently, in their adulteries, neither Abraham nor David sinned...
                  _________

                  In mu understanding, in the scriptures harlotry isn't equated with adultery. So, imu, a wife could run away and become a harlot and that was OK, but she couldn't give her love to another = adultery. If I recall correctly, YHWH highlights the difference when discussing Judea and Israel.

                  Anyone care to clarify for me?
                  Last edited by apostoli; 07-07-2015, 04:56 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    Here is a paper from a very conservative scholar that (in my view, persuasively) argues that remarriage and adultery are not a state of continual sin and that the initial action are what constitutes the adultery. Some of the points he considers are the OT prohibition on remarrying someone you previously divorced, and the fact that in John 4:16-18, Jesus recognized the multiple marriages of the woman he met at the well:


                    http://www.academia.edu/2996952/Mist...dersgate_Forum
                    Do you really think that because Jesus interacted with a woman who had been married 5 times (and was now living with a man not her husband) that this jutsified remarriage?

                    That's a real stretch

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                      Do you really think that because Jesus interacted with a woman who had been married 5 times (and was now living with a man not her husband) that this jutsified remarriage?

                      That's a real stretch
                      That's sort of like saying that God approves of everything mentioned in scripture that's not simultaneously condemned.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                        Do you really think that because Jesus interacted with a woman who had been married 5 times (and was now living with a man not her husband) that this jutsified remarriage?

                        That's a real stretch
                        No, if you read the paper, the point is that Jesus acknowledged that she had had five marriages. If only the first marriage was valid and the others were invalid because the first marriage was still actually intact, as many would argue, he could have said "You have lived with five men while still being married to the original man"... and there would be no point in his pointing out that she had not married her current man, as that wouldn't matter at all. No less a scholar than Craig Keener has argued the same point.

                        Whether one is convinced or not (and I really am not wanting to into divorce as we are fairly down a tangent), my overall point is that the issue of divorce, remarriage, and adultery is not quite as straightforward as the issue of homosexuality as a hermeneutical case can be made. I see no reason not to stand by my original point that the stances of the PCUSA and other denominations on homosexuality constitute apostasy.
                        Last edited by KingsGambit; 07-09-2015, 04:58 PM.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          No, if you read the paper, the point is that Jesus acknowledged that she had had five marriages. If only the first marriage was valid and the others were invalid because the first marriage was still actually intact, as many would argue, he could have said "You have lived with five men while still being married to the original man"... and there would be no point in his pointing out that she had not married her current man, as that wouldn't matter at all. No less a scholar than Craig Keener has argued the same point.

                          Whether one is convinced or not (and I really am not wanting to into divorce as we are fairly down a tangent), my overall point is that the issue of divorce, remarriage, and adultery is not quite as straightforward as the issue of homosexuality as a hermeneutical case can be made. I see no reason not to stand by my original point that the stances of the PCUSA and other denominations on homosexuality constitute apostasy.
                          Jesus also said that the mustard seed was smallest of all the seeds. It is and was not. However, Jesus wasn't doing a biology lesson that day, but speaking about faith. So, he spoke from their perspective to avoid getting off topic about whether the mustard seed is, in fact, the smallest.

                          Same thing here. Jesus is simply speaking from her perspective so as to not get off topic as to what is or isn't a marriage, and address the issue that he wants to get to.

                          C'mon, this is undergrad stuff. Are you really claiming that anyone took that argument seriously?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by apostoli View Post
                            Your opinion pretty well sums up the opinion of the RCC and more-or-less mine (given I am RCC).

                            Here in Oz, we have no fault divorces - either the husband or wife can sue for divorce - just fill out a form, get your spouse to sign it (indicating agreement), pay a court fee ($500?) and wait a few weeks. Takes a bit longer if the spouse doesn't co-sign the form and doesn't contest the divorce. I don't know what happens if the spouse contests the divorce. I guess the combatants have to appear in court and fight it out.

                            As far as I know child support is automatic and how much to pay is determined under Family Law legislation and is usually imposed on the husband (nb: child support can be imposed on someone irrespective of marital status). If someone wants to vary the payment criteria or spread it between the parents then one has to appeal to the court.

                            Not sure about spouse maintenance. Probably has to go to the courts unless there is a private agreement.
                            _____

                            I think we have to be careful about making proclamations about sin. Did Abraham sin when he married his sister Sarah? (incest today is considered a sin). When he had sex with Sarah's slave and pro-created Ishmael, did he sin? (Even though Sarah suggested it, today that would have been considered adultery or at least Polyamory (the latter being illegal in many a country). Jewish tradition tells us Abraham had many wives, he was a polygamist (the latter being illegal in many a country). Like most if not all of the patriarchs, Abraham was a rampant adulterer, and therefore by your definition totally a serial sinner of the worse type, and yet it was to Abraham that YHWH appeared as a man (Gen 18) and considered him to be His friend.

                            Shall we now review King David. Someone who was not only an adulterer but one who arranged the murder of a woman's husband to cover up his liaison, and yet YHWH made him sovereign over His people...

                            Imu, "sin" is falling short of God's standards. Apparently, in their adulteries, neither Abraham nor David sinned...
                            _________

                            In mu understanding, in the scriptures harlotry isn't equated with adultery. So, imu, a wife could run away and become a harlot and that was OK, but she couldn't give her love to another = adultery. If I recall correctly, YHWH highlights the difference when discussing Judea and Israel.

                            Anyone care to clarify for me?

                            Dude, just because God has used sinners for His purposes does not negate the fact that they in fact sinned. Are you next going to claim that Saul/Paul didn't sin in persecuting Christians?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                              Same thing here. Jesus is simply speaking from her perspective so as to not get off topic as to what is or isn't a marriage, and address the issue that he wants to get to.
                              Christy has a thread in Biblical Ethics on Divorce and remarriage. I am sure she would be interested in your and Cow Pokes (I think he is a minister) and any one else's comments there too.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                                Dude, just because God has used sinners for His purposes does not negate the fact that they in fact sinned. Are you next going to claim that Saul/Paul didn't sin in persecuting Christians?
                                Dude, scripture just goes to prove that "sin" is a relative thing, open to definition (or quite often personal prejudice).

                                As for A.Paul, he points out that if it wasn't for the law (eg: though shall not covet) we wouldn't know what sin was/is (Rom 7:7). Therefore, in that context Saul did not sin in persecuting Christians (in fact he was being faithful to the ordinances of Moses). However, after Christ's intervention on the road to Damascus, if Saul had continued in his previous ways, by his own admission he would have sinned by failing to " love thy neighbour as thyself (cp. Rom 13:8-10).

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X