How was church today ?

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23827
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: How was church today ?

Post by Josh »

Bottom line- Sermon was excellent- will we fit in here or anywhere? Again realizing overexposure to too much has hurt and helped. Dear Lord have mercy on us all.
I think God has a plan for all believers to have fellowship. When I feel like I don't fit in anywhere - I must consider if the problem is with me, not with everyone else.
0 x
Valerie
Posts: 5309
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:59 am
Location: Medina OH
Affiliation: non-denominational

Re: How was church today ?

Post by Valerie »

Josh wrote:
Bottom line- Sermon was excellent- will we fit in here or anywhere? Again realizing overexposure to too much has hurt and helped. Dear Lord have mercy on us all.
I think God has a plan for all believers to have fellowship. When I feel like I don't fit in anywhere - I must consider if the problem is with me, not with everyone else.
Possibly- or considering that in each group we've allowed ourselves to explore who claim to be the way- the 'true Church' or whatever- each group FIRMLY believes the others are wrong. We have had the approach to consider they all have truth and all may have 'some' error (if they disagree with each other, someone has it right)
We get along with all the people we meet very well, and have blessed conversations- but we get tired of everyone claiming the others are wrong- since we have maintained teachable spirits, we don't discard others as 'non' Christians in the various sects within the Church because I believe no 'sect' or 'denomination' will be excluded from heaven that knows the Lord Jesus Christ and teaches the Gospel and lives according to His teachings-
We just get frustrated because when we hear 'THEY' are wrong about this or that- we consider those opinions and don't wish to discard other Christians as 'deceived' all the time. It really does make me sad.
But people? We love having fellowship within all the groups-
Perhaps you misunderstood me so I am clarifying the problem. Fit in 'theology', not fit in with people.
0 x
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: How was church today ?

Post by Wade »

And the lonely blind individual Bartimaeus cried out the more when others wouldn't accept him calling out.
Jesus did.
And the leper, He touched...
You can find His church IS doing that too.
0 x
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: How was church today ?

Post by Sudsy »

Speaking of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, I believe it. There is nothing I can do to merit salvation as it is "a gift of God not of works lest any man should boast". I also believe that when this gift is received we become new creations. As new creations with a changed heart we do good works.

So, if people are saying that grace alone means that there are no accompanying good works and faith and belief involved, in my understanding of scripture this is not the grace given us for salvation from sins.

Seems to me that sometimes those who preach grace alone by faith alone are judged as preaching some kind of "easy beliefism". And some do if they are not also preaching what this salvation does to our hearts. But most I know are basically preaching that we cannot save ourselves and need faith in God and His grace to be saved. The results of this is regeneration that produces good works from a changed heart. As James says, faith without works is dead. Some may go through some kind of confession to receive the gift but if their faith is not the kind that is saving faith, then their faith is dead.

We can't save ourselves nor can we do some unspecified quantity of good works to keep saved. Same for obedience. None of us are perfectly obedient. With a changed heart we desire and work at being obedient. But God's grace is amazing grace. Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt.

Is that how others here view this ? Perhaps this needs it's own thread.
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: How was church today ?

Post by MattY »

Sudsy wrote:Speaking of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, I believe it. There is nothing I can do to merit salvation as it is "a gift of God not of works lest any man should boast". I also believe that when this gift is received we become new creations. As new creations with a changed heart we do good works.

So, if people are saying that grace alone means that there are no accompanying good works and faith and belief involved, in my understanding of scripture this is not the grace given us for salvation from sins.

Seems to me that sometimes those who preach grace alone by faith alone are judged as preaching some kind of "easy beliefism". And some do if they are not also preaching what this salvation does to our hearts. But most I know are basically preaching that we cannot save ourselves and need faith in God and His grace to be saved. The results of this is regeneration that produces good works from a changed heart. As James says, faith without works is dead. Some may go through some kind of confession to receive the gift but if their faith is not the kind that is saving faith, then their faith is dead.

We can't save ourselves nor can we do some unspecified quantity of good works to keep saved. Same for obedience. None of us are perfectly obedient. With a changed heart we desire and work at being obedient. But God's grace is amazing grace. Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt.

Is that how others here view this ? Perhaps this needs it's own thread.
Speaking for myself, yes, absolutely. It is definitely synergistic - involves co-operation between God and man, with God offering salvation freely to all through the sacrifice of his Son (and, I believe, offering prevenient grace to enable fallen humanity to respond to His invitation), but man must choose whether or not to receive the gift and follow Christ. It is not monergistic - an unconditional predestination. But it is by grace alone through faith alone. And true faith produces works (fruit) in our lives. A dead faith produces no fruit.

I agree with you about easy believism - it definitely exists, and is a big problem among evangelicals - but not all evangelicals teach it. I would say that my first paragraph (and your post) is fully compatible with both historic Anabaptism and evangelicalism (but probably not with either Old Order theology or the liberal social gospel/liberation theology in the MCUSA). I've noticed that evangelical theology gets criticized a lot on here, but I think it's just as easy for us to misrepresent their theology as it is for them to misrepresent ours.

This site explains what you're talking about pretty well, I think.

https://www.gotquestions.org/easy-believism.html

I agree with almost all of it, except for a few sentences that show Calvinist views on eternal security. Look at these comments: "“Faith alone” does not mean that some believers follow Christ in a life of discipleship, while others do not. The concept of the “carnal Christian,” as a separate category of non-spiritual believer, is completely unscriptural...Those who continue to walk according to the flesh are not believers (Romans 8:5–8). This is why Paul exhorts us to “examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). The “carnal” Christian who examines himself will soon see that he/she is not in the faith...With true salvation comes genuine repentance and real life change." I think conservative Anabaptists should be able to agree with this, and I think on soteriology, historic Anabaptist theology is fully evangelical. It is not Calvinist, nor is it in agreement with free-grace theology, but those are not synonymous with "evangelical". There are points of agreement and disagreement, and evangelicalism is a fairly big tent (no matter how much the neo-Calvinists want to limit it to themselves).
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
Sudsy
Posts: 5859
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:32 pm
Affiliation: .

Re: How was church today ?

Post by Sudsy »

buckeyematt2 wrote: Speaking for myself, yes, absolutely. It is definitely synergistic - involves co-operation between God and man, with God offering salvation freely to all through the sacrifice of his Son (and, I believe, offering prevenient grace to enable fallen humanity to respond to His invitation), but man must choose whether or not to receive the gift and follow Christ. It is not monergistic - an unconditional predestination. But it is by grace alone through faith alone. And true faith produces works (fruit) in our lives. A dead faith produces no fruit.

I agree with you about easy believism - it definitely exists, and is a big problem among evangelicals - but not all evangelicals teach it. I would say that my first paragraph (and your post) is fully compatible with both historic Anabaptism and evangelicalism (but probably not with either Old Order theology or the liberal social gospel/liberation theology in the MCUSA). I've noticed that evangelical theology gets criticized a lot on here, but I think it's just as easy for us to misrepresent their theology as it is for them to misrepresent ours.

This site explains what you're talking about pretty well, I think.

https://www.gotquestions.org/easy-believism.html

I agree with almost all of it, except for a few sentences that show Calvinist views on eternal security. Look at these comments: "“Faith alone” does not mean that some believers follow Christ in a life of discipleship, while others do not. The concept of the “carnal Christian,” as a separate category of non-spiritual believer, is completely unscriptural...Those who continue to walk according to the flesh are not believers (Romans 8:5–8). This is why Paul exhorts us to “examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). The “carnal” Christian who examines himself will soon see that he/she is not in the faith...With true salvation comes genuine repentance and real life change." I think conservative Anabaptists should be able to agree with this, and I think on soteriology, historic Anabaptist theology is fully evangelical. It is not Calvinist, nor is it in agreement with free-grace theology, but those are not synonymous with "evangelical". There are points of agreement and disagreement, and evangelicalism is a fairly big tent (no matter how much the neo-Calvinists want to limit it to themselves).
Amen. I recently had spent a couple years under a Baptist (TULIP) pastor and he challenged the congregation often to check out their salvation as to what God had done and is doing in their lives and whether or not they had trully repented. In private conversations with him, he had concerns that some in the congregation were not showing the signs of a changed heart but rather were more into churchianity (no personal relationship with Jesus). We had some good debates on the TULIP belief system. He is a good brother in the Lord and really preached a 'whosoever will may come' Gospel, although he believed only the regenerated are able to come.

What are your thoughts on the growth in Neo-Calvinism ?
0 x
Pursuing a Kingdom life in the Spirit
cmbl
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:07 pm
Affiliation: Pilgrim, NMB
Contact:

Re: How was church today ?

Post by cmbl »

I am unable to find the phrase "faith alone" anywhere in Scripture other than James 2:24.
I see no need to apologize to Protestantism.

With the understanding that "grace" and "faith alone" are not synonymous, I would expect conservative Mennonite churches that teach "faith alone" to soon be in mainstream evangelicalism.
0 x
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous."
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: How was church today ?

Post by MattY »

cmbl wrote:I am unable to find the phrase "faith alone" anywhere in Scripture other than James 2:24.
I see no need to apologize to Protestantism.

With the understanding that "grace" and "faith alone" are not synonymous, I would expect conservative Mennonite churches that teach "faith alone" to soon be in mainstream evangelicalism.
The term "Trinity" is not found in Scripture at all, yet Scripture teaches it. Same for "Second Coming". With that in mind, see Rom. 3:27-28; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:9; etc. Also verses like John 3:16 and Acts 16:31. True belief produces repentance and a changed life; James in the verse you cite is arguing against an early form of easy believism, or against an idea of salvation that involves only lip assent and no genuine repentance. When he says "justified by works", he means that faith is shown and proven by works.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
MattY
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 5:36 pm
Location: Ohio
Affiliation: Beachy
Contact:

Re: How was church today ?

Post by MattY »

Sudsy wrote:
buckeyematt2 wrote: Speaking for myself, yes, absolutely. It is definitely synergistic - involves co-operation between God and man, with God offering salvation freely to all through the sacrifice of his Son (and, I believe, offering prevenient grace to enable fallen humanity to respond to His invitation), but man must choose whether or not to receive the gift and follow Christ. It is not monergistic - an unconditional predestination. But it is by grace alone through faith alone. And true faith produces works (fruit) in our lives. A dead faith produces no fruit.

I agree with you about easy believism - it definitely exists, and is a big problem among evangelicals - but not all evangelicals teach it. I would say that my first paragraph (and your post) is fully compatible with both historic Anabaptism and evangelicalism (but probably not with either Old Order theology or the liberal social gospel/liberation theology in the MCUSA). I've noticed that evangelical theology gets criticized a lot on here, but I think it's just as easy for us to misrepresent their theology as it is for them to misrepresent ours.

This site explains what you're talking about pretty well, I think.

https://www.gotquestions.org/easy-believism.html

I agree with almost all of it, except for a few sentences that show Calvinist views on eternal security. Look at these comments: "“Faith alone” does not mean that some believers follow Christ in a life of discipleship, while others do not. The concept of the “carnal Christian,” as a separate category of non-spiritual believer, is completely unscriptural...Those who continue to walk according to the flesh are not believers (Romans 8:5–8). This is why Paul exhorts us to “examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5). The “carnal” Christian who examines himself will soon see that he/she is not in the faith...With true salvation comes genuine repentance and real life change." I think conservative Anabaptists should be able to agree with this, and I think on soteriology, historic Anabaptist theology is fully evangelical. It is not Calvinist, nor is it in agreement with free-grace theology, but those are not synonymous with "evangelical". There are points of agreement and disagreement, and evangelicalism is a fairly big tent (no matter how much the neo-Calvinists want to limit it to themselves).
Amen. I recently had spent a couple years under a Baptist (TULIP) pastor and he challenged the congregation often to check out their salvation as to what God had done and is doing in their lives and whether or not they had trully repented. In private conversations with him, he had concerns that some in the congregation were not showing the signs of a changed heart but rather were more into churchianity (no personal relationship with Jesus). We had some good debates on the TULIP belief system. He is a good brother in the Lord and really preached a 'whosoever will may come' Gospel, although he believed only the regenerated are able to come.

What are your thoughts on the growth in Neo-Calvinism ?
I'm not sure I have a whole lot to say about them, or what the growth portends for the future, except that of course I disagree with them, and I'm concerned about their penchant for taking over institutions that used to be predominantly Arminian or at least open to both Calvinism and Arminianism, and insisting that others agree with them or else be labeled heretics. Especially in the SBC.

But perhaps they should be called Neo-Puritans instead. Apparently Neo-Calvinism has traditionally meant the ideas of Abraham Kuyper. Both are obviously Calvinists, but the recent surge has been in Neo-Puritanism.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/reintegrat ... calvinism/

If there was a smiley of a bunny going off on a trail, I'd post it here.
0 x
Almighty, most holy God
Faithful through the ages
Almighty, most holy Lord
Glorious, almighty God
temporal1
Posts: 16279
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: How was church today ?

Post by temporal1 »

Valerie wrote:
ohio jones wrote:
Valerie wrote:Okay so I am relatively new to studying Church history - (as a Pentecost, "Church" history wasn't something we pursued a lot of learning about) so the last several years it's been challenging to try to understand 20000 years of the Church.
Yes, that does look like an overwhelming task. Just focus on the last 10% to start with. ;)
:o just saw my typo, now I understand why you said that- meant '2000' years! (and I'm a 'new earth' Believer so 200000 wouldn't even cut it no matter what)
you really have to keep a keen eye on that one. imagine what it must have been like, trying to raise him. i empathize with his mother.
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
Post Reply