No argument here.

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.

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.

Site seems to be having technical issues. Dupes everywhere (not the posters). Takes forever to make a post etc

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.

---

In terms of your comment that you try to follow the apostles and the early church they founded, this belief and practice is completely alien to both scripture and the early church. It is precisely the "innovation" that you said you wanted to avoid.

The odd take, rather, is yours in how you quickly and completely contradicted your own comment.

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

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In terms of your comment that you try to follow the apostles and the early church they founded, this belief and practice is completely alien to both scripture and the early church. It is precisely the "innovation" that you said you wanted to avoid.

The odd take, rather, is yours in how you quickly and completely contradicted your own comment.

---

You couldn't be farther from the truth. The people the listens to Jesus' voice and told the stories and or wrote down his teachings including his very activities of the Last Supper etc are all part of the Bible and the Tradition that make up the teachings and the tenets of Christian faith. Zero contradiction at all. Seems you are projecting a bit

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Exactly.

The fundamental issue is that a church service isn't supposed to be an exercise in evangelism. It is supposed to be a worship service for the already evangelized. God is the audience, not the people in the pews. The liturgy of the first millenum came from that point of view.

There's a very good website that chronicles the sorts of absurdities you end up with when you embrace innovation.

http://www.protestia.com

---

Of course the first article was about Methodists having a Christmas drag church.

Not sure what is behind the Methodists' obsession with grooming kids.

We visited a local Methodist church, the focus was more on cockzuckers and butt pirates than the Gospel.

---

Just like all the other mainline Protestant Churches the Methodist Church has now split along social-cultural-moral lines

The United Methodist Church is continuing on the path of uber progressive ideology....while the conservatives have left to start the new Global Methodist Church with the congregations in Africa and Latin America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Methodist_Church

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Methodist_Church

---

It's a shame that mainline Protestant Churches let politics trump the Gospel and became so obsessed with the Culture Wars they would allow long-term damage to the Body. Many mainline churches are little more than social clubs for LWNJ extremists and related special interest groups.

---

Well it's hard to blame the methodist church split for being too political, other than to say it has been of tragic affect as it avoided teaching "political" morality. The lack of addressing abortion and hetero marriage, homosexuality, etc, is the real reason the church split.

Also, progressivism is its own religion. They don't worship God, they worship secular love. Holy biblical love is an afront to them. That is why they reinterpret church doctrine to make it fit secularists version of "love". Holy living is irrelevant to them. Progressive activists just use the church to advance secular love and hedonism.

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

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

"Innovation" is agnostic.

Innovation can be positive or negative for the Church.

---

Duplicate post

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In terms of your comment that you try to follow the apostles and the early church they founded, this belief and practice is completely alien to both scripture and the early church. It is precisely the "innovation" that you said you wanted to avoid.

The odd take, rather, is yours in how you quickly and completely contradicted your own comment.

---

You couldn't be farther from the truth. The people the listens to Jesus' voice and told the stories and or wrote down his teachings including his very activities of the Last Supper etc are all part of the Bible and the Tradition that make up the teachings and the tenets of Christian faith. Zero contradiction at all. Seems you are projecting a bit

---

Okay, then go ahead and show us. Show us where in the bible prayer is ever directed to anyone other than God or Jesus. Show where it teaches us to pray to Mary or the saints. Show us where the early church ever did this, believed in it, or taught it.

You can't. Because it's not there. It's exactly the kind of "innovation" you claimed you didn't want.

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

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

---

that is a quote from one of his books. Now listen to his sermons and you'll hear him read scripture and explain how the NYC professional is in the same battle as the woman caught in the act of adultery, how the NYC professional worships idols.

With Begg I'm guessing you've got one complaint and that is him recommending the grandmother to go to the gay wedding. He didn't say that as the solution for all grandmothers and gay grandkids. He said it to THAT grandmother about THAT grandkid. Someone he'd already had a discussion with and knew of their family relationship and prior discussions.

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.

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 agree it has happened in today's American churches. It clearly has. But here's the essential question: how do you know the message is being "watered down"? Based on what standard are you measuring this?

From the very beginning of the church's inception, the message was being watered down (or up). The early church had to combat all the false teachers, messiahs, and heresies alluded to by the apostle Paul in his letters and by Jesus in Revelation. It was a constant battle. How could followers determine what was false? What standard did they use? They used the message from Jesus' apostles as the standard, which they declared to be divinely inspired by Jesus himself (John 14:26-27). If it went against their testimony, it was rejected.

The same principle holds today. If the only thing we have today that we know is the infallible, divinely inspired word of God is the written testimony of those apostles i.e. scripture, then the final authority or standard against which all doctrine must be measured is scripture. Hence, sola scriptura.

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

---

The word translated as "sin" in the Gospels is either the verb, hamartan, or the noun, hamartia (), which mean "to miss the mark," "to fail in one's purpose," "to err," "to be mistaken," "to fail in having," "to neglect," "failure," "fault," and "error." How important was sin in Jesus's teaching?

Keller didn't use the synonym you prefer so he's wrong and is what is wrong with the church in America?

Here is another Greek word for you; hubris. Read the definition and synonyms again, as though for the first time

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

---

Find the fault

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.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In terms of your comment that you try to follow the apostles and the early church they founded, this belief and practice is completely alien to both scripture and the early church. It is precisely the "innovation" that you said you wanted to avoid.

The odd take, rather, is yours in how you quickly and completely contradicted your own comment.

---

You couldn't be farther from the truth. The people the listens to Jesus' voice and told the stories and or wrote down his teachings including his very activities of the Last Supper etc are all part of the Bible and the Tradition that make up the teachings and the tenets of Christian faith. Zero contradiction at all. Seems you are projecting a bit

---

Okay, then go ahead and show us. Show us where in the bible prayer is ever directed to anyone other than God or Jesus. Show where it teaches us to pray to Mary or the saints. Show us where the early church ever did this, believed in it, or taught it.

You can't. Because it's not there.

---

That just gets us to the problem of authority

For Protestants its sola scriptura....if its not in the Bible its not legitimate or hard to justify

But for Catholics and Orthodox the teachings of the Church fathers, the traditions of the Church, and the teachings of the Church Councils are also legitimate and authoritative

[The doctrine of intercession and invocation was set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that "... the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour"]


To a Baptist the Council of Trent means nothing.....to a Catholic it is authoritative teaching of the world wide Church and legitimate

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In terms of your comment that you try to follow the apostles and the early church they founded, this belief and practice is completely alien to both scripture and the early church. It is precisely the "innovation" that you said you wanted to avoid.

The odd take, rather, is yours in how you quickly and completely contradicted your own comment.

---

You couldn't be farther from the truth. The people the listens to Jesus' voice and told the stories and or wrote down his teachings including his very activities of the Last Supper etc are all part of the Bible and the Tradition that make up the teachings and the tenets of Christian faith. Zero contradiction at all. Seems you are projecting a bit

---

Okay, then go ahead and show us. Show us where in the bible prayer is ever directed to anyone other than God or Jesus. Show where it teaches us to pray to Mary or the saints. Show us where the early church ever did this, believed in it, or taught it.

You can't. Because it's not there.

---

That just gets us to the problem of authority

For Protestants its sola scriptura....if its not in the Bible its not legitimate or hard to justify

But for Catholics and Orthodox the teachings of the Church fathers, the traditions of the Church, and the teachings of the Church Councils are also legitimate and authoritative

[The doctrine of intercession and invocation was set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that "... the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour"]


To a Baptist the Council of Trent means nothing.....to a Catholic it is authoritative teaching of the world wide Church and legitimate

---

But then they can not claim original apostolic origin for that belief. They'd have to claim divine authority for themselves. That's where it starts to crumble. With that, they can depart from the original faith in any number of ways, and validate it in circular fashion. You've then lost the measuring stick against which to discern error.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Find the fault

---

Already did.

...and as this is a "Contemporary Evangelical Church" discussion, probably should stick tp that topic rather than let this go off course in a Catholic / Protestant debate (found over in the How To Get To Heaven thread).

Pagan Christianity touches on traditions that are man made since early church. It's an interesting read. But agree that it's our relationship with Christ that matters and what we do with our calling thru Him

George Barna I believe wrote pagan Christianity

Realitybites said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Find the fault

---

Already did.

...and as this is a "Contemporary Evangelical Church" discussion, probably should stick tp that topic rather than let this go off course in a Catholic / Protestant debate (found over in the How To Get To Heaven thread).

---

Wrong response to my post. I was discussing Keller and Begg. Others brought up prayer to saints

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.

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.

So are you saying that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are totally separate entities, and , if so, with God the greatest? As you can see, I am pretty simple, which some may see as naive. I am just curious, as it's not a salvation issue. Just curious to get the perspective of others.

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.

---

Quote:

---

Luke 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'

---

I believe the biggest issue is that we can't communicate with them, but we can communicate with people still with us, to pray for us.

Also 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

We can always communicate through Christ.

BUDOS said:

---

So are you saying that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are totally separate entities, and , if so, with God the greatest? As you can see, I am pretty simple, which some may see as naive. I am just curious, as it's not a salvation issue. Just curious to get the perspective of others.

---

Happy to share my thoughts via DM if interested, but I would ignore this dude when it comes to theology (or anything else). Based on what he posts here, he does not really believe in the divine or supernatural and like most Methodist clergy today reduces Jesus to an LBGT+/-$#@%& community organizer.

While yes, the full, theological concept of the Trinity is not present is Scripture the idea clearly is present. The relativeness of the three was the subject of the first division among the Church - the Great Schism in 1054. The "filioque" controversy split the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches on whether the Holy Ghost sprang from the Father or the Father and the Son (if I remember my high school Latin, "filioque" means "and the son.")

Similarly, the Arian heresy that promotes the Father above the Son has been present since the earliest days of the Church.

One of the most difficult stumbling blocks of Christian orthodoxy - particularly among Muslims - has been the claim of monotheism while belief in The Trinity. Maybe the second biggest theological controversy - after praise and worship music - has been those that overemphasize the Humanity of Christ and those that overemphasize the Deity of Christ.

As a silly aside - Christian Orthodoxy is way too complicated to be made up by ANE fishermen and peasants. If one wanted to make up a religion, this is the absolutely opposite of how one would do it.

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.

---

If I'm understanding you right, you're asking why a non-salvation issue should matter. That it's being "Pharisee" to divide along those lines.

Minor non-salvation issues should not divide Christians, and even if it does, the spirit should be that we're still brothers and sisters in Jesus. Still, non-salvation issues are very important. It's still important to keep from error. Keeping Jesus' teachings intact and free of corruption is a must for all Christians. If you don't think Jesus feels that way, then read his letters to the seven churches in Revelation. It honors and shows love to Jesus to keep true to him and to keep from sin. But not only that, a real danger exists where corrupted doctrine can eventually lead to really big corruption down the line. And it even may ultimately corrupt the gospel itself, a salvation issue. And then at that point, it may be too late to fix.

Consider the issue we're discussing, the praying to Mary and the saints. This is a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture and in the early church. It slowly started creeping in, one church father or theologian at a time, with a seemingly innocent comment or two praising Mary and the saints. Then that builds into higher and higher praise. It probably raises some concerns at the time, but maybe it's just thought of as a "minor" and "non-salvation issue". Then later, Christianity becomes the official religion of Rome, and Christianity compromises with the beliefs and practices of the pagans, who want to continue praying to their gods and godesses. To transition them over to Christianity, they re-cast their idols into being Mary and the saints, who have already been elevated to special status of honor in Christianity so their promotion to being gods is not that big of a leap. Then hundreds of years go by, during which godly admiration for Mary turns into devotion. Devotion becomes piety. Piety turns Mary into the figure of a "sinless" person, who was "bodily assumed into heaven", where she has the role of "Mediator" between sinners and God. And now you've just replaced Jesus Christ in the hearts of followers. And now you have Roman Catholics today who can't even recognize the utter blasphemy and idolatry that's right in front of their faces. And when it causes them to love Mary more than Jesus and trust in her for their salvation instead of Jesus, you've now got millions and millions of people being led into Hell.

Don't underestimate the effect of one yeast grain in a huge mound of dough. Don't forget that a frog in hot water will immediately leap out, but start off with cool water and slowly turn up the heat, then it'll stay put until it dies.

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.

https://wdm.lutheranchurchofhope.org/

I read about this church in West Des Moines, Iowa. From what I read it's the fastest growing church in America. I think that was in 2022. Not sure if it still is or not though.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In terms of your comment that you try to follow the apostles and the early church they founded, this belief and practice is completely alien to both scripture and the early church. It is precisely the "innovation" that you said you wanted to avoid.

The odd take, rather, is yours in how you quickly and completely contradicted your own comment.

---

You couldn't be farther from the truth. The people the listens to Jesus' voice and told the stories and or wrote down his teachings including his very activities of the Last Supper etc are all part of the Bible and the Tradition that make up the teachings and the tenets of Christian faith. Zero contradiction at all. Seems you are projecting a bit

---

Okay, then go ahead and show us. Show us where in the bible prayer is ever directed to anyone other than God or Jesus. Show where it teaches us to pray to Mary or the saints. Show us where the early church ever did this, believed in it, or taught it.

You can't. Because it's not there. It's exactly the kind of "innovation" you claimed you didn't want.

---

Thats simple. You apparently just will deny it so won't waste the time but this has been covered at length. For everrrrrr

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In terms of your comment that you try to follow the apostles and the early church they founded, this belief and practice is completely alien to both scripture and the early church. It is precisely the "innovation" that you said you wanted to avoid.

The odd take, rather, is yours in how you quickly and completely contradicted your own comment.

---

You couldn't be farther from the truth. The people the listens to Jesus' voice and told the stories and or wrote down his teachings including his very activities of the Last Supper etc are all part of the Bible and the Tradition that make up the teachings and the tenets of Christian faith. Zero contradiction at all. Seems you are projecting a bit

---

Okay, then go ahead and show us. Show us where in the bible prayer is ever directed to anyone other than God or Jesus. Show where it teaches us to pray to Mary or the saints. Show us where the early church ever did this, believed in it, or taught it.

You can't. Because it's not there.

---

That just gets us to the problem of authority

For Protestants its sola scriptura....if its not in the Bible its not legitimate or hard to justify

But for Catholics and Orthodox the teachings of the Church fathers, the traditions of the Church, and the teachings of the Church Councils are also legitimate and authoritative

[The doctrine of intercession and invocation was set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that "... the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour"]


To a Baptist the Council of Trent means nothing.....to a Catholic it is authoritative teaching of the world wide Church and legitimate

---

1 Corinthians 6:2-3 as an example

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?

BusyTarpDuster2017 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.

---

If I'm understanding you right, you're asking why a non-salvation issue should matter. That it's being "Pharisee" to divide along those lines.

Minor non-salvation issues should not divide Christians, and even if it does, the spirit should be that we're still brothers and sisters in Jesus. Still, non-salvation issues are very important. It's still important to keep from error. Keeping Jesus' teachings intact and free of corruption is a must for all Christians. If you don't think Jesus feels that way, then read his letters to the seven churches in Revelation. It honors and shows love to Jesus to keep true to him and to keep from sin. But not only that, a real danger exists where corrupted doctrine can eventually lead to really big corruption down the line. And it even may ultimately corrupt the gospel itself, a salvation issue. And then at that point, it may be too late to fix.

Consider the issue we're discussing, the praying to Mary and the saints. This is a belief and practice that is completely absent in Scripture and in the early church. It slowly started creeping in, one church father or theologian at a time, with a seemingly innocent comment or two praising Mary and the saints. Then that builds into higher and higher praise. It probably raises some concerns at the time, but maybe it's just thought of as a "minor" and "non-salvation issue". Then later, Christianity becomes the official religion of Rome, and Christianity compromises with the beliefs and practices of the pagans, who want to continue praying to their gods and godesses. To transition them over to Christianity, they re-cast their idols into being Mary and the saints, who have already been elevated to special status of honor in Christianity so their promotion to being gods is not that big of a leap. Then hundreds of years go by, during which godly admiration for Mary turns into devotion. Devotion becomes piety. Piety turns Mary into the figure of a "sinless" person, who was "bodily assumed into heaven", where she has the role of "Mediator" between sinners and God. And now you've just replaced Jesus Christ in the hearts of followers. And now you have Roman Catholics today who can't even recognize the utter blasphemy and idolatry that's right in front of their faces. And when it causes them to love Mary more than Jesus and trust in her for their salvation instead of Jesus, you've now got millions and millions of people being led into Hell.

Don't underestimate the effect of one yeast grain in a huge mound of dough. Don't forget that a frog in hot water will immediately leap out, but start off with cool water and slowly turn up the heat, then it'll stay put until it dies.

---

Wow you took a horrific right turn there that went into total utter nonsense.

John 6:53 will do plenty to Baptists / Protestants that don't believe anyway

What year did the baptist church start again?

Even Martin luther held Mary in high regard and wrote of her lack of original sin

Redbrickbear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

In terms of your comment that you try to follow the apostles and the early church they founded, this belief and practice is completely alien to both scripture and the early church. It is precisely the "innovation" that you said you wanted to avoid.

The odd take, rather, is yours in how you quickly and completely contradicted your own comment.

---

You couldn't be farther from the truth. The people the listens to Jesus' voice and told the stories and or wrote down his teachings including his very activities of the Last Supper etc are all part of the Bible and the Tradition that make up the teachings and the tenets of Christian faith. Zero contradiction at all. Seems you are projecting a bit

---

Okay, then go ahead and show us. Show us where in the bible prayer is ever directed to anyone other than God or Jesus. Show where it teaches us to pray to Mary or the saints. Show us where the early church ever did this, believed in it, or taught it.

You can't. Because it's not there.

---

That just gets us to the problem of authority

For Protestants its sola scriptura....if its not in the Bible its not legitimate or hard to justify

But for Catholics and Orthodox the teachings of the Church fathers, the traditions of the Church, and the teachings of the Church Councils are also legitimate and authoritative

[The doctrine of intercession and invocation was set forth by the Council of Trent, which teaches that "... the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their own prayers to God for men. It is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, and help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour"]


To a Baptist the Council of Trent means nothing.....to a Catholic it is authoritative teaching of the world wide Church and legitimate

---

And without those councils the Bible as we know it today wouldn't even exist so I dunno…