BUDOS said:

---

I agree with almost everything you stated, and I don't disagree with any of it, at this time. I believe many nonsalvation issues are worth discussion; however, IMO, too often lines are drawn in the sand and it becomes an argument for turf, with Pharisees often on both sides. Once the tone changes away from sharing/exchanging opinions minds become closed.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

"Innovation" is agnostic.

Innovation can be positive or negative for the Church.

---

Would any of us expect a church in suburban Waco to look like and teach like a church in New York City?

There are three pastors and churches that I have a great deal of respect for that teach in three different ways.

1). A suburb of Waco with a growing FBC in a growing community. They teach in "series" and the Sunday School teaching matches the sermon. They are HEAVILY focused on the community as their mission field. the service is about 75 minutes long with 20 of that being preaching.

2) Parkside Church in Cleveland. With the exception of the Christmas and Easter seasons, Alistair Begg preaches through the Bible-even the boring parts and hard parts. His sermons run 30-40 minutes. I really enjoy his teaching

3) Redeemer Presbyterian in New York. A couple months ago I stumbled across a YouTube channel that had Timothy Keller sermons. I'd heard the name but never his sermons (they are really good) His sermons are aimed at New York professionals. I did a little checking on Redeemer and most of those in attendance are single, New York business people. He doesn't preach a great deal on family issues but more on the idols of success, money, sex and power-the sermons are for his targeted audience. It seems every sermon comes back to the gospel!!! His sermons are not what you'd hear in suburban Waco. (And yes, I wrote this as though he were still living but he's not.)

I work with a bunch of atheist and agnostics and whichever category you'd put the apathetic.

From each of these teachers I have learned a great deal about how to live/share the gospel at work. The importance of (work)community, the biblical knowledge applied to daily life and, our own idols ($ales, sex/porn, selfishness, anger/hatred)

There is an overlap (gospel and scripture) with each of the churches but they are anything but cookie-cutters. To paraphrase Paul; to the redneck I became a redneck. The the student I became the teacher. To the philosophical professional I brought the philosophy and truth of the gospel.

Know your audience

Adapt the message without changing the message

---

Two of three examples you have given (Begg and Keller) are case studies in what went wrong with the American church. Watering down the message to be culturally compatible is how we got here. The SBC in Waco I don't know anything about so I'll refrain from commenting.

"I use it [the word sin] with lots and lots of explanation, because the word is essentially obsolete. They do get the idea of branding, of taking a word or term and filling it with your own content, so I have to rebrand the word 'sin,' Around here [in his Redeemer Network churches] it means self-centeredness."

- Tim Keller

---

.....I'll venture to guess that you've not listened to a full sermon by either unless you heard Begg speak at Baylor a couple years back. I challenge you to listen to 3 sermons from each and then get back to me with a list of their failures that you actually heard. First, I doubt you will. Second, I doubt you can.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

"Innovation" is agnostic.

Innovation can be positive or negative for the Church.

---

Would any of us expect a church in suburban Waco to look like and teach like a church in New York City?

There are three pastors and churches that I have a great deal of respect for that teach in three different ways.

1). A suburb of Waco with a growing FBC in a growing community. They teach in "series" and the Sunday School teaching matches the sermon. They are HEAVILY focused on the community as their mission field. the service is about 75 minutes long with 20 of that being preaching.

2) Parkside Church in Cleveland. With the exception of the Christmas and Easter seasons, Alistair Begg preaches through the Bible-even the boring parts and hard parts. His sermons run 30-40 minutes. I really enjoy his teaching

3) Redeemer Presbyterian in New York. A couple months ago I stumbled across a YouTube channel that had Timothy Keller sermons. I'd heard the name but never his sermons (they are really good) His sermons are aimed at New York professionals. I did a little checking on Redeemer and most of those in attendance are single, New York business people. He doesn't preach a great deal on family issues but more on the idols of success, money, sex and power-the sermons are for his targeted audience. It seems every sermon comes back to the gospel!!! His sermons are not what you'd hear in suburban Waco. (And yes, I wrote this as though he were still living but he's not.)

I work with a bunch of atheist and agnostics and whichever category you'd put the apathetic.

From each of these teachers I have learned a great deal about how to live/share the gospel at work. The importance of (work)community, the biblical knowledge applied to daily life and, our own idols ($ales, sex/porn, selfishness, anger/hatred)

There is an overlap (gospel and scripture) with each of the churches but they are anything but cookie-cutters. To paraphrase Paul; to the redneck I became a redneck. The the student I became the teacher. To the philosophical professional I brought the philosophy and truth of the gospel.

Know your audience

Adapt the message without changing the message

---

Two of three examples you have given (Begg and Keller) are case studies in what went wrong with the American church. Watering down the message to be culturally compatible is how we got here. The SBC in Waco I don't know anything about so I'll refrain from commenting.

"I use it [the word sin] with lots and lots of explanation, because the word is essentially obsolete. They do get the idea of branding, of taking a word or term and filling it with your own content, so I have to rebrand the word 'sin,' Around here [in his Redeemer Network churches] it means self-centeredness."

- Tim Keller

---

.....I'll venture to guess that you've not listened to a full sermon by either unless you heard Begg speak at Baylor a couple years back. I challenge you to listen to 3 sermons from each and then get back to me with a list of their failures that you actually heard. First, I doubt you will. Second, I doubt you can.

---

I've listened to Alistair Begg many times and have always found him to be solid, except for maybe the whole gay wedding thing. But the irony here is the insistence that Protestantism has "watered down" the message - if that's watering down, then Orthodox Christianity's veneration of icons and praying to saints is a tsunami of error.

At least Protestantism is able to recognize that ALL are fallible, even preachers, thus the importance of always measuring everything against a standard - Scripture. Protestantism lets people be people, and allows for continuous monitoring for error and reform when needed. Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, do not. They are firmly based on the very false belief of church infallibility. Once errors enter, they stay.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

First, I feel guilty criticizing churches. At best, it feels a little ******y and at worst it has divided nations and led to civil wars. That being said, the TDS gets old, so curious everyone's thoughts. I am also convicted by a friend's post about Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship and his concept of cheap grace.

My family has found a great church home in many ways. It is the stereotypical, suburban video-franchise church and follows the usual evangelical accoutrements - it's right out of the Evangelical Playbook.

That being said, here are things that we really like about the church that may not be consistent with other cookie-cutter churches we have attended.
1. Worship - yes, same silly rock band and four singers jumping, but the "band" does repeat songs regularly so we can get to know some modern worship songs
2. Politics - the church is from a party perspective apolitical and is theologically orthodox but does put a lot of effort into mission (domestic and international), reconciliation, and justice
3. The Pastor is a gifted preacher that shares genuine messages that move our hearts

My complaints ... forgive if simple minded ...

1. I am not a fan of the video-franchise church; I think the NT "church planting" model is preferred for myriad reasons (happy to discuss in more detail if anyone cares)

2. The church is hyper-individualistic ... communion - which to its credit is done more frequently than many evangelical churches - is done in individual packets ... sort of defeats the spirit of communion

3. The church really promotes online service - this is great for folks that are homebound or traveling, but I think the message should be "find a local church home and watch us too for extra, mid-week support"

4. The church cancelled service the Sunday before and after Christmas ... I appreciate the burden Christmas and Easter can be on the staff, but this is a large church with multiple campuses and staff members to support ... some folks rely on weekly service for support and community

Not unique to this church, but I do wish there was more of an order of worship to evangelical churches like the old SBC ... I mean we did not even read the Christmas Story during the Christmas service.

Anyway, curious everyone's thoughts ... realize much of worship since the Psalms is man-made and we all have opinions. Wish there was a way to keep the best of innovation and the best of the past.

---

What is video franchise church? I'm not familiar with the term

---

Where churches have multiple locations and pipe the pastor in via video.

---

midgett said:

---

Not the biggest fan of the satellite thing either though my church has that and we attend the satellite.

Our campus is in the far suburbs. We have a pretty young congregation as housing is a bit more affordable out here.

The info I have is that our campus doesn't support itself financially. Lots of young people haven't started consistently tithing. The main campus provides some financial support. It may be a necessary part of the satellite model. Still, I'd be surprised if there was ever a clean break. I suspect are some economies of scale with the satellite model.

I never thought I'd be attending a "megachurch." But it was nearby and provided so many great activities for our kids. Sure there are some downsides but there are a ton of positives. Love our church and our pastor.

I think as long as the Word is being taught that every church serves a purpose. Some are drawn to the really small church, some to the megachurch and some to churches in between. Whichever church will attract someone and get them to grow closer to Christ is the church I like.

Ripping a church that does preach the Word because it doesn't fit your view of the ideal church is more a reflection of you rather than the church.

---

hodedofome said:

---

Sacred Pathways is a good foundation to read before criticizing churches. That being said there are certainly things to criticize in the megachurch model.

---

BUDOS said:

---

I don't argue that unfortunately today many minds are already closed before their initial post; however, it is hard for someone to be open and willing to discuss an issue when there is snarling attack dog running at them full speed.
Your overall knowledge is impressive; however, your delivery could use some work, if you truly want a deep discussion about religious issues. ( Hint: my own personal past experience.)

---

Realitybites said:

---

"Alistair Begg, in contrast, locked his church down in 2020 upon the government's demand, refusing to suffer an ounce for obedience to God's Word (source). Moreover in his Branch Covidianism, he applied unbiblical mandates for worship (source). And Begg was nowhere to be found on the issue of wokeness coming into the churches. So there is no surprise that he would counsel a grandmother to sin rather than to suffer and preach the truth."

Preaching with a William Wallace accent only goes so far when you operate in accomodate the world mode the other six days of the week.

---

Realitybites said:

---

One of the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith for 2000 years has been "We look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." Those are the words that conclude our foundational creed.

It is entirely irrational to put your faith in a God who raises the dead and heals the sick and then cancel worship services for Him because of a respiratory virus. It is also bad to reopen and segregate your congregation by mask or vax status.

Yet the overwhelming majority of western churches did this.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

"Innovation" is agnostic.

Innovation can be positive or negative for the Church.

---

Would any of us expect a church in suburban Waco to look like and teach like a church in New York City?

There are three pastors and churches that I have a great deal of respect for that teach in three different ways.

1). A suburb of Waco with a growing FBC in a growing community. They teach in "series" and the Sunday School teaching matches the sermon. They are HEAVILY focused on the community as their mission field. the service is about 75 minutes long with 20 of that being preaching.

2) Parkside Church in Cleveland. With the exception of the Christmas and Easter seasons, Alistair Begg preaches through the Bible-even the boring parts and hard parts. His sermons run 30-40 minutes. I really enjoy his teaching

3) Redeemer Presbyterian in New York. A couple months ago I stumbled across a YouTube channel that had Timothy Keller sermons. I'd heard the name but never his sermons (they are really good) His sermons are aimed at New York professionals. I did a little checking on Redeemer and most of those in attendance are single, New York business people. He doesn't preach a great deal on family issues but more on the idols of success, money, sex and power-the sermons are for his targeted audience. It seems every sermon comes back to the gospel!!! His sermons are not what you'd hear in suburban Waco. (And yes, I wrote this as though he were still living but he's not.)

I work with a bunch of atheist and agnostics and whichever category you'd put the apathetic.

From each of these teachers I have learned a great deal about how to live/share the gospel at work. The importance of (work)community, the biblical knowledge applied to daily life and, our own idols ($ales, sex/porn, selfishness, anger/hatred)

There is an overlap (gospel and scripture) with each of the churches but they are anything but cookie-cutters. To paraphrase Paul; to the redneck I became a redneck. The the student I became the teacher. To the philosophical professional I brought the philosophy and truth of the gospel.

Know your audience

Adapt the message without changing the message

---

Two of three examples you have given (Begg and Keller) are case studies in what went wrong with the American church. Watering down the message to be culturally compatible is how we got here. The SBC in Waco I don't know anything about so I'll refrain from commenting.

"I use it [the word sin] with lots and lots of explanation, because the word is essentially obsolete. They do get the idea of branding, of taking a word or term and filling it with your own content, so I have to rebrand the word 'sin,' Around here [in his Redeemer Network churches] it means self-centeredness."

- Tim Keller

---

.....I'll venture to guess that you've not listened to a full sermon by either unless you heard Begg speak at Baylor a couple years back. I challenge you to listen to 3 sermons from each and then get back to me with a list of their failures that you actually heard. First, I doubt you will. Second, I doubt you can.

---

I've listened to Alistair Begg many times and have always found him to be solid, except for maybe the whole gay wedding thing. But the irony here is the insistence that Protestantism has "watered down" the message - if that's watering down, then Orthodox Christianity's veneration of icons and praying to saints is a tsunami of error.

At least Protestantism is able to recognize that ALL are fallible, even preachers, thus the importance of always measuring everything against a standard - Scripture. Protestantism lets people be people, and allows for continuous monitoring for error and reform when needed. Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, do not. They are firmly based on the very false belief of church infallibility. Once errors enter, they stay.

---

Regarding Begg and the grandmother going to the gay wedding: the grandmother has a relationship with the grandson. Her going to the gay wedding can be seen in the same light as Christ eating with the tax collectors. She is showing love without showing approval.
(all of this is assumed from us as none of us were in on any of the conversations)

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Good points as is often the case; however, isn't the word of God and His teachings the foundation? Realizing I'm not the Bible scholar like a few of you, a quick example would be that the Triune God says we are to pray to Him, not anyone else. So, if that's what He said, why would it matter if a group of the smartest theologians said something else?
Why create another barrier? Don't We have enough Pharisees already? Not looking for a fight; just trying to learn why some seem to disagree.

---

The "Triune God" is a creation of the early church and the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.
Its creation was the result of our monotheistic roots in Judaism. The early church councils felt forced to defend a monotheistic God that also apparently believed in Jesus and Holy Spirit.
To me the Trinity is not essential to our faith.

---

Was Jesus God or no?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Good points as is often the case; however, isn't the word of God and His teachings the foundation? Realizing I'm not the Bible scholar like a few of you, a quick example would be that the Triune God says we are to pray to Him, not anyone else. So, if that's what He said, why would it matter if a group of the smartest theologians said something else?
Why create another barrier? Don't We have enough Pharisees already? Not looking for a fight; just trying to learn why some seem to disagree.

---

The "Triune God" is a creation of the early church and the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.
Its creation was the result of our monotheistic roots in Judaism. The early church councils felt forced to defend a monotheistic God that also apparently believed in Jesus and Holy Spirit.
To me the Trinity is not essential to our faith.

---

Was Jesus God or no?

---

Fair question. But first I would ask; who is the Jesus of the gospel writers and kerygma of the early church? I don't doubt Jesus is historical but what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology organic to the church (churches) to which they were writing. However, I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation.
The answer to your question is not binary.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Good points as is often the case; however, isn't the word of God and His teachings the foundation? Realizing I'm not the Bible scholar like a few of you, a quick example would be that the Triune God says we are to pray to Him, not anyone else. So, if that's what He said, why would it matter if a group of the smartest theologians said something else?
Why create another barrier? Don't We have enough Pharisees already? Not looking for a fight; just trying to learn why some seem to disagree.

---

The "Triune God" is a creation of the early church and the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.
Its creation was the result of our monotheistic roots in Judaism. The early church councils felt forced to defend a monotheistic God that also apparently believed in Jesus and Holy Spirit.
To me the Trinity is not essential to our faith.

---

Was Jesus God or no?

---

Fair question. But first I would ask; who is the Jesus of the gospel writers and kerygma of the early church? I don't doubt Jesus is historical but what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology organic to the church (churches) to which they were writing. However, I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation.
The answer to your question is not binary.

---

Cop out Not a cop out.

---

BUDOS said:

---

I can understand why you may be defensive at times. IMO, your approach/tone leads some to believe that you come across as someone who has the following philosophy: "If you know it all, what is there left to learn?"
You appear to indicate you are okay with that, and that is certainly your right.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Good points as is often the case; however, isn't the word of God and His teachings the foundation? Realizing I'm not the Bible scholar like a few of you, a quick example would be that the Triune God says we are to pray to Him, not anyone else. So, if that's what He said, why would it matter if a group of the smartest theologians said something else?
Why create another barrier? Don't We have enough Pharisees already? Not looking for a fight; just trying to learn why some seem to disagree.

---

The "Triune God" is a creation of the early church and the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.
Its creation was the result of our monotheistic roots in Judaism. The early church councils felt forced to defend a monotheistic God that also apparently believed in Jesus and Holy Spirit.
To me the Trinity is not essential to our faith.

---

Was Jesus God or no?

---

Fair question. But first I would ask; who is the Jesus of the gospel writers and kerygma of the early church? I don't doubt Jesus is historical but what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology organic to the church (churches) to which they were writing. However, I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation.
The answer to your question is not binary.

---

Cop out

---

Quote:

---

Cop out Not a cop out.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Good points as is often the case; however, isn't the word of God and His teachings the foundation? Realizing I'm not the Bible scholar like a few of you, a quick example would be that the Triune God says we are to pray to Him, not anyone else. So, if that's what He said, why would it matter if a group of the smartest theologians said something else?
Why create another barrier? Don't We have enough Pharisees already? Not looking for a fight; just trying to learn why some seem to disagree.

---

The "Triune God" is a creation of the early church and the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.
Its creation was the result of our monotheistic roots in Judaism. The early church councils felt forced to defend a monotheistic God that also apparently believed in Jesus and Holy Spirit.
To me the Trinity is not essential to our faith.

---

Was Jesus God or no?

---

Fair question. But first I would ask; who is the Jesus of the gospel writers and kerygma of the early church? I don't doubt Jesus is historical but what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology organic to the church (churches) to which they were writing. However, I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation.
The answer to your question is not binary.

---

Cop out

---

Quote:

---

Cop out Not a cop out.

---

Question: Who is the Jesus of the synoptic gospels and kerygma of the early church?
1) Premise: Jesus is historical
2) Premise: what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology
3) Premise : the gospels are organic to the church (or churches) to which they were writing.
4) Premise: I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation and that context is hugely formative to the gospels

Conclusion: The answer to your question is not binary but complex.
Now your job is to refute my premises
Or you can cop out..

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Good points as is often the case; however, isn't the word of God and His teachings the foundation? Realizing I'm not the Bible scholar like a few of you, a quick example would be that the Triune God says we are to pray to Him, not anyone else. So, if that's what He said, why would it matter if a group of the smartest theologians said something else?
Why create another barrier? Don't We have enough Pharisees already? Not looking for a fight; just trying to learn why some seem to disagree.

---

The "Triune God" is a creation of the early church and the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.
Its creation was the result of our monotheistic roots in Judaism. The early church councils felt forced to defend a monotheistic God that also apparently believed in Jesus and Holy Spirit.
To me the Trinity is not essential to our faith.

---

Was Jesus God or no?

---

Fair question. But first I would ask; who is the Jesus of the gospel writers and kerygma of the early church? I don't doubt Jesus is historical but what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology organic to the church (churches) to which they were writing. However, I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation.
The answer to your question is not binary.

---

Cop out

---

Quote:

---

Cop out Not a cop out.

---

Question: Who is the Jesus of the synoptic gospels and kerygma of the early church?
1) Premise: Jesus is historical
2) Premise: what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology
3) Premise : the gospels are organic to the church (or churches) to which they were writing.
4) Premise: I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation and that context is hugely formative to the gospels

Conclusion: The answer to your question is not binary but complex.
Now your job is to refute my premises
Or you can cop out..

---

Read Gen 1:2, Gen 1:26, John 1:1, John 1:14, John 1:32 and Matt 3:16

Those verses will tell you Who Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are.

---

Realitybites said:

---

One of the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith for 2000 years has been "We look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." Those are the words that conclude our foundational creed.

It is entirely irrational to put your faith in a God who raises the dead and heals the sick and then cancel worship services for Him because of a respiratory virus. It is also bad to reopen and segregate your congregation by mask or vax status.

Yet the overwhelming majority of western churches did this.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Good points as is often the case; however, isn't the word of God and His teachings the foundation? Realizing I'm not the Bible scholar like a few of you, a quick example would be that the Triune God says we are to pray to Him, not anyone else. So, if that's what He said, why would it matter if a group of the smartest theologians said something else?
Why create another barrier? Don't We have enough Pharisees already? Not looking for a fight; just trying to learn why some seem to disagree.

---

The "Triune God" is a creation of the early church and the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.
Its creation was the result of our monotheistic roots in Judaism. The early church councils felt forced to defend a monotheistic God that also apparently believed in Jesus and Holy Spirit.
To me the Trinity is not essential to our faith.

---

Was Jesus God or no?

---

Fair question. But first I would ask; who is the Jesus of the gospel writers and kerygma of the early church? I don't doubt Jesus is historical but what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology organic to the church (churches) to which they were writing. However, I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation.
The answer to your question is not binary.

---

Cop out

---

Quote:

---

Cop out Not a cop out.

---

Question: Who is the Jesus of the synoptic gospels and kerygma of the early church?
1) Premise: Jesus is historical
2) Premise: what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology
3) Premise : the gospels are organic to the church (or churches) to which they were writing.
4) Premise: I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation and that context is hugely formative to the gospels

Conclusion: The answer to your question is not binary but complex.
Now your job is to refute my premises
Or you can cop out..

---

Read Gen 1:2, Gen 1:26, John 1:1, John 1:14, John 1:32 and Matt 3:16

Those verses will tell you Who Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are.

---

Deal with my premises. Which one (s) is wrong and why?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Good points as is often the case; however, isn't the word of God and His teachings the foundation? Realizing I'm not the Bible scholar like a few of you, a quick example would be that the Triune God says we are to pray to Him, not anyone else. So, if that's what He said, why would it matter if a group of the smartest theologians said something else?
Why create another barrier? Don't We have enough Pharisees already? Not looking for a fight; just trying to learn why some seem to disagree.

---

The "Triune God" is a creation of the early church and the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.
Its creation was the result of our monotheistic roots in Judaism. The early church councils felt forced to defend a monotheistic God that also apparently believed in Jesus and Holy Spirit.
To me the Trinity is not essential to our faith.

---

Was Jesus God or no?

---

Fair question. But first I would ask; who is the Jesus of the gospel writers and kerygma of the early church? I don't doubt Jesus is historical but what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology organic to the church (churches) to which they were writing. However, I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation.
The answer to your question is not binary.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Good points as is often the case; however, isn't the word of God and His teachings the foundation? Realizing I'm not the Bible scholar like a few of you, a quick example would be that the Triune God says we are to pray to Him, not anyone else. So, if that's what He said, why would it matter if a group of the smartest theologians said something else?
Why create another barrier? Don't We have enough Pharisees already? Not looking for a fight; just trying to learn why some seem to disagree.

---

The "Triune God" is a creation of the early church and the trinity is not mentioned in the Bible.
Its creation was the result of our monotheistic roots in Judaism. The early church councils felt forced to defend a monotheistic God that also apparently believed in Jesus and Holy Spirit.
To me the Trinity is not essential to our faith.

---

Was Jesus God or no?

---

Fair question. But first I would ask; who is the Jesus of the gospel writers and kerygma of the early church? I don't doubt Jesus is historical but what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology organic to the church (churches) to which they were writing. However, I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation.
The answer to your question is not binary.

---

Cop out

---

Quote:

---

Cop out Not a cop out.

---

Question: Who is the Jesus of the synoptic gospels and kerygma of the early church?
1) Premise: Jesus is historical
2) Premise: what we have is fragments of his words were redacted by the Synoptic gospel writers to highlight their theology
3) Premise : the gospels are organic to the church (or churches) to which they were writing.
4) Premise: I posit a historical and contextual understanding of gospels. German Biblical theologians called it "Sitz im Leben", that is, the church's historical situation and that context is hugely formative to the gospels

Conclusion: The answer to your question is not binary but complex.
Now your job is to refute my premises
Or you can cop out..

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Anyway, curious everyone's thoughts ... realize much of worship since the Psalms is man-made and we all have opinions. Wish there was a way to keep the best of innovation and the best of the past.

---

Orthopraxy has entered the chat.

Innovation *is* the problem. There is no best of it. What you end up in is a perpeual cycle cultural compromise in which the faith once delivered to the saints is diluted to the point of becoming moralistic therapeutic deism.

Ask yourself, if Saint Paul was to walk into your service, would he recognize the worship portion of the service as a Christian? The communion service at all? Or would he think he was in some pagan temple on Mars Hill?

---

What would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?

---

What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?

---

Quote:

---

Personally I generally think when we get our judgement God will say "I made it so easy and yet y'all complicated all of it"

I'd prefer to try to follow in the footsteps of those that walked with Jesus and founded the early church than guess at some "innovations" that were come up with 1000 or more years after Jesus walked the earth.

Now if innovation means how best to try to bring people to Christ, we'll, we all know Jesus himself was a huge innovator for his day as it is written.

---

If this is what you believe, then you most certainly should reject the teaching of icon veneration by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, among many others, like praying to Mary and the saints.

---

Why would praying to the mother of God be an issue or praying to a saint when you'd ask your lowly mortal beer buddy to pray for a sick relative? That's an odd take. Good luck.

---

sombear said:

---

hodedofome said:

---

Sacred Pathways is a good foundation to read before criticizing churches. That being said there are certainly things to criticize in the megachurch model.

---

I'm interesting your critiques. My background: Grew up in small churches. After college started attending a "mega church" in the midwest burbs and stayed there for 15 years before we moved to Texas. Joined another mega in the burbs. Stayed there for 10 years until we moved out to the country. Now attend a smaller church. Really loved and grew in all these churches. We can all nitpick I really have nothing to complain about and no material critiques.

In very broad terms. In my smaller, more traditional churches, a closer knit congregation overall. Pastors involved in families' lives. Outstanding biblical preaching. Tighter budgets. Commitment to international missions, but limited scope and usually partnered with other churches due to budget restraints. Less local community focus - again, mostly due to resources. Members very much grew in their faiths. Pastors accountable to members - Boards, etc. Limited growth. Smaller kids/youth programs. Very limited political discussion.

Our two mega churches - Strengths were leading people to Christ. Strong commitment (and resources to do it well) to international, domestic, and local missions. Similarly strong church ministries, such as singles, single moms, veterans, recovering alcoholics, those in financial need, employment services, etc. Large, dynamic kids/youth programs. Pastors preached the Word, often with a "seeker" focus. Relied more on small groups and weekday services for more in depth messages. In one of the megas, little oversight of the pastor - he had most of the control. Fortunately, he was very transparent on finances, missions, big decisions, etc. but I could see potential abuse in that model. Other mega was the opposite. Strong, hands-on Board. Both pastors disclosed their salaries and bases for them. Very limited political discussion.

Again, I don't have major issues with either model or anything in between. In my view, it's more about individual pastors, leaders, and congregations.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One of the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith for 2000 years has been "We look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." Those are the words that conclude our foundational creed.

It is entirely irrational to put your faith in a God who raises the dead and heals the sick and then cancel worship services for Him because of a respiratory virus. It is also bad to reopen and segregate your congregation by mask or vax status.

Yet the overwhelming majority of western churches did this.

---

In your eyes, is Jay walking, looking both ways before crossing the street, following speed limits, wearing a helmet or seatbelt wrong?

---

Mothra said:

---

'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.

We ask other believers and brothers in Christ to pray for us because they are 1) believers; and 2) alive. See James 5:16.

Praying to a long dead mortal is like praying to your long dead drinking buddy. It's worthless.

---

Realitybites said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

One of the fundamental tenants of the Christian faith for 2000 years has been "We look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen." Those are the words that conclude our foundational creed.

It is entirely irrational to put your faith in a God who raises the dead and heals the sick and then cancel worship services for Him because of a respiratory virus. It is also bad to reopen and segregate your congregation by mask or vax status.

Yet the overwhelming majority of western churches did this.

---

In your eyes, is Jay walking, looking both ways before crossing the street, following speed limits, wearing a helmet or seatbelt wrong?

---

There is a difference between wandering around a broken creation doing secular things and going to church in good faith to worship a God who heals the sick and raises the dead.

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.

We ask other believers and brothers in Christ to pray for us because they are 1) believers; and 2) alive. See James 5:16.

Praying to a long dead mortal is like praying to your long dead drinking buddy. It's worthless.

---

"And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" (John 11:26)

So if you simply take what Jesus says at face value, you realize that those whose physical bodies have fallen asleep in the Lord are not dead. So the parallel of praying to a long dead mortal/long dead drinking buddy has absolutely zero relevance to the Christian who has passed into the afterlife.

It's sad that when so many modernists and believers in scientism respond to this question, they tell Jesus "Actually, no I don't. I'm more of a gnostic. The body doesn't mean anything, we cremate it usually, and move on after a memorial service instead of a funeral. Ashes to ashes and all, don't ya know."



After which he says "But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope."(1st Thessalonians 4:13).

---

Your reasoning here is pretty disingenuous, but I guess when you have no scripture to support your practice, trying to mischaracterize your opponents' position is all you got. Let me help you:

As any reasonable person reading my post clearly understood, I was referring to the mortal body, which does indeed die (unless you're Enoch or Elijah). See Genesis 3:19. God, in Genesis, describes physical death as an act of mercy. See Genesis 3:22. And of course, scripture clearly distinguishes between the mortal body and the spiritual one. See 1 Thessalonians 5:23. The idea that this is a "modernist" or "gnostic" view is pretty remarkable, it's so ill-informed.

While I was pointing out the clear and obvious logical errors in freedombear's analogy, the big picture problem with praying to long (physically) dead mortals is there is no evidence in scripture that their spirits can 1) answer our prayers; or 2) hear them.

Sorry for destroying your misguided and unscriptural belief on this subject.

---