|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/24/2010 3:31:05 PM
|
|
|
heremainsfaithful
Posts: 1137
Joined: 10/14/2009
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
My analogy definitely isn't perfect. And to be honest, I really don't have a lot of patience for the kum-ba-ya thing, as I call it to my H. The Bible is God's Word, and I don't understand not wanting to know everything possible about it. I was really just trying to say that the either-or position is extreme and not even really possible with true Christianity.
_____________________________
Jer. 29:11, II Tim. 2:13, Jude 24, 25
https://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.aspx?bookid=58896
Eihstein's IQ may be higher than mine, but God's IQ is higher than anyone's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/24/2010 5:48:51 PM
|
|
|
didymus101
Posts: 1343
Joined: 6/13/2009
Status: offline
|
drmark, your previous contributions on this matter were saying something different. I was putting forth it was directly from God by grace and the Holy Spirit and you were insisting "right beliefs" were necessary for love and for good works. For instance, in post #35 you give jazzact an "Amen" for the very same statement you now disagree with. And today you did the same thing.
And you said this in post #15: "That's nice intellectualism, didymus, but it does not address the simple truth that there is no meaningful orthopraxy without meaningful orthodoxy to underlie it." Compare this to what you just wrote in post #45: "Doctrine has little, if anything, to do with righteous actions. By the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, Christians do not sin!"
Which is it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/24/2010 6:13:09 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5594
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
No, I was not "saying something different". You misunderstood my position just as I misunderstood yours. Right beliefs are "necessary" but not sufficient for love and good works. Doctrine as intellectual knowledge has little to do with righteous actions. Showing love without knowing the Source of Love is never meaningful in the long run. This is as plain as I can make my position, didymus. I agree with hrf above: "I was really just trying to say that the either-or position is extreme and not even really possible with true Christianity."
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/24/2010 6:30:54 PM
|
|
|
didymus101
Posts: 1343
Joined: 6/13/2009
Status: offline
|
When I read people seeming to essentially say that Christians do not need right beliefs and right thinking in order to love right, it seems like they are saying that one does not need musical theory in order to play music. In that sense, it is like the nonsense in "August Rush", where the derelict doesn't want to child to learn theory because he thinks it will ruin him, when in reality the discipline of theory and practice would likely help his talent blossom. Jazzact
Love is not "our" talent: it is of God. It is not learned: it is infused by the Holy Spirit. Both God and the Holy Spirit do not need to be informed by doctrine how to act "rightly." Your analogy is based on a false premise.
There are no shortage of examples of people trying to separate love from doctrine, and of essentially reversing the process--informing their theology by what they consider to be love. Jazzact
Love and sound doctrine are both essential, for the umpteenth time.
The separation you see in what I say is a false dichotomy that you present as my view.
Here is what I am actually saying and have been saying all along:
To say a body part has a specific place and function is not to separate it from the body and it is not to make it less or more than another part of the body.
Doctrine teaches us about God and our salvation and is to used to help bring others rightly to Christ; call this the head. Love is the direct expression of God for us, and through us to demonstrate His likeness to others and for others; call this the heart. Each has it proper place and function.
Doctrine leads us to God, it does not replace God. We do not stand on our doctrine; our position, faith, is in Christ. It is in Christ, not a doctrinal tradition, we are to live and move and have our being.
We can only get our love from God because God is love; doctrine serves the vital role of directing us to the source of love.
To say that doctrine does not teach us how to love rightly is only repeating what Scripture clearly and precisely tells us about the nature of love.
Please find one verse hwere it says doctrine is the source of love and it teaches us how to love rightly. You have yet to provide any Scripture to support this belief.
"...by what they consider to be love." Jazzact
Ignoring your innuendo, I do not have an opinion as to what love is; I have adequate Scripture that, again, clearly and precisely defines the nature of love and describes in detail the intrinsic atrributes of love.
I'll add this from another thread:
Whatever form love may take--agape or whatever--love is not defined by the subject: dog, chocolate, spouse, sister, child. This is the mistake of making these forms of love's expression into types of love. Love is of God period. Love comes in one type: unconditional. Love has all the characteristics precisely delineated in the Bible. These are attributes which are part and parcel of love and not taught or directed by doctrine. It is directly infused by the Holy Spirit through our complete abandonment to His will and grace. Love directs and informs doctrine and all that we think, say, and do.
There is no equivocation or qualifiers to statements about love, such as if you have sound doctrine then love never fails. It can be taken for granted that if you did not have sound doctrine, you may not find yourself in the place it is meant to lead you: total trust in and reliance upon Spirit in all your affairs, or to live and move and have your being in Christ.
"The person that dwells in love, dwells in God and God in that person." What an utterly incredible statement. To love means to be of one spirit with God. This is the scriptural definition of love. No order of degree or magnitude is given, and no types. We see what love is and how it behaves by looking at Christ--and nowhere else (meaning hippies, emergents, or, as one poster suggested, "teenagers in the dark").
There is only one type of love--and it is only and always godly by the nature of its source: God.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 11:05:07 AM
|
|
|
solarflare
Posts: 1285
Joined: 6/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Which is inconsequential to the fact that what he wrote is basically true.
Hnmmm...well I don't find the book of Lewis in Scripture. For some reason, God choose to leave him out. Most likely
because, IMO, he provided more confusion than truth.
quote:
Where, pray tell, does Scripture tell us that reality is simple? Lewis' statement does not contradict Scripture in the least.
Oh I say old chap, are we going to use Elizabethan English now? Pray thou, good fellow, from what chapter, from what verse, the mind is enlightened and thence engaged in the sad knowledge that all of life is complicated and even that good gift from our Lord is so base in this world as to further that cause.
Lewis does not contradict Scripture in the least? Yes, and which professor told you that? I'm a little alarmed at the weight you put on his words.....I can begin to see how important they seem to be to you. The gospel of St. Lewis..........
quote:
Sin doesn't complicate things, sin spoils them, soils them. Sin makes a good thing like sex into the evils of pornography, rape, adultery and fornication. Sin makes ambition into the evils of envy, theft, and oppression. Sin makes a desire to know God into the evils of idolatry, cults, and the idea that man can make itself good enough.
Complication (or, if you wish, complexity or intricacy) is not evil. Simplicity is not the ultimate good. If you think that God is simple, you need to learn a bit more about Him.
Yes, and rape and adultery do not complicate things? Ask someone who has committed adultery if that sin did not complicate things.
Your argument is just plain silly.
How is it that you have changed the subject again? The discussion is doctrine and love.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 11:15:17 AM
|
|
|
solarflare
Posts: 1285
Joined: 6/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: didymus101
jazzact, I have not seen a single poster in this thread claim "love and not doctrine." That is how a number of people have read solarflare and my posts, yet both of us have stated that sound doctrine is essential but it is not everything and has certain place in faith.
Yes and it bears repeating endlessly because certain posters refuse to acknowledge that. I am certainly more than capable of understanding both sides and support both sides' I believe both yourself and I have been referencing God's love....yet we are told the world is complicated, love is complicated, love is sinful etc.
Love is ONLY godly; it does not need doctrine to teach it how to love rightly or godly--if I may speak for solarflare, that is the point we have both been trying to make. Yes. I agree.
All of faith does not fall under the auspices of sound doctrine; sound doctrine, right beliefs, are key elements among other key elements.
I'll repeat myself at the risk of again being grossly misunderstood: Well you are not alone Love is of God, not of doctrine. It is infused by the Holy Spirit directly with a surrender to God's will and grace. It teaches us what to say and do at the appropriate times; the Holy Spirit does not take lessons from the doctrine we hold. Agreed.
Solarflare, if you have been following this thread from the start, you should know we are in basic agreement; what you have been saying is repeating what I have said from the start. Agreed. And I have been following from the start.
You should also know from all the false accusations and the misrepresentations of your statements, and this is even apparent from your most recent post, that I am not being overly dramatic; there is entrenchment.
LOL...the overly dramatic....I did understand what you wrote, which is why I put whatever......I just felt you worded it strongly. See? I am not taking sides at all. I disagree with everyone!  
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 11:17:31 AM
|
|
|
solarflare
Posts: 1285
Joined: 6/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
why so much resistance to being under the tutelage of Christ to have the fullness of life.
Hmmmm....if we leave ourselves to the tutelage of Christ, how will we control it? Now if we support and wave the flag of docrtine above all
else, that is something we can control, take hold of and try with all our sinful hearts to abide by.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 11:30:22 AM
|
|
|
solarflare
Posts: 1285
Joined: 6/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
When I read people seeming to essentially say that Christians do not need right beliefs and right thinking in order to love right, it seems like they are saying that one does not need musical theory in order to play music. In that sense, it is like the nonsense in "August Rush", where the derelict doesn't want to child to learn theory because he thinks it will ruin him, when in reality the discipline of theory and practice would likely help his talent blossom. There are no shortage of examples of people trying to separate love from doctrine, and of essentially reversing the process--informing their theology by what they consider to be love.
How very badly you misunderstand. No one has written, in this thread, anything that would 'essentially' cause you to think we do not need
the truth. At this point, it would appear you are the only one assuming such. No one has written any such thing. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie 'August Rush', it bears noting that the entire movie was filled with the complications caused by sin and sinful complications...fornication, rebellion, lying, theft, abuse etc. In the real world, that ending would be utterly impossible as it would seem to suggest, much like Eastern mysticism that the road to enlightment, or in this case a happy ending, has at the end only redemption as long as the heart is pure.( the child's heart in this case) That is a problem when Christians take their examples from the world.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 12:18:21 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5594
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
while I consider the ones I mentioned above as real musicians. Personally, I consider them artists gifted in making music. They're really not "musicians" at all if they cannot read music or understand elementary music theory. IMO!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 1:14:16 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5594
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
So how does this relate to the OP? Can a person be a "true" Christian without knowing or understanding or applying any "formal" Christian doctrine? Is it enough just to "love like Christ" in order to be saved?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 2:08:54 PM
|
|
|
Eutychus
Posts: 9205
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dothan, AL
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
So how does this relate to the OP? ....
I'm reasonably sure I didn't indicate it did. Sorry if I offended you with my ramblings about a pet observation of mine.
I still feel that a musician is someone who can make music. All the music theory knowledge available to mankind might make one a great theorist but they aren't a musician if they cannot make music.
_____________________________
Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent." -John 6:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 3:26:45 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5594
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm reasonably sure I didn't indicate it did. Sorry if I offended you with my ramblings about a pet observation of mine.
I still feel that a musician is someone who can make music. All the music theory knowledge available to mankind might make one a great theorist but they aren't a musician if they cannot make music. Sorry if I offended you, Euty, because it was meant to be a rhetorical question. I see a potentially significant relationship between music theory and being a "real" musician with essential doctrine and being a "real" Christian. See where I'm going?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 3:36:27 PM
|
|
|
sledmt
Posts: 412
Joined: 8/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Eutychus
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
So how does this relate to the OP? ....
I'm reasonably sure I didn't indicate it did. Sorry if I offended you with my ramblings about a pet observation of mine.
I still feel that a musician is someone who can make music. All the music theory knowledge available to mankind might make one a great theorist but they aren't a musician if they cannot make music.
I would have to agreed with you Euty... Just because you can commit something to memory does not mean that you understand it or can put it to practical use...
This also applies to the word of God...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 3:47:10 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5594
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just because you can commit something to memory does not mean that you understand it or can put it to practical use... "Committing something to memory" has nothing to do with the relationship between theory and practice or orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The issue here is whether a Christian can show "real" love if they do not know the "real" Source of Love.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 3:59:41 PM
|
|
|
sledmt
Posts: 412
Joined: 8/25/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Just because you can commit something to memory does not mean that you understand it or can put it to practical use... "Committing something to memory" has nothing to do with the relationship between theory and practice or orthodoxy and orthopraxy. The issue here is whether a Christian can show "real" love if they do not know the "real" Source of Love.
Just because you have committed John 3:16 to memory does not mean you know the life giver. Only as He reveal John 3:16 to you can you then pour this out to others. Real love is only available to pour out when it has been poured into you. No amount of knowledge or degree can fill that...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 4:13:24 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5594
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Just because you have committed John 3:16 to memory does not mean you know the life giver I guess I didn't make my point clearly, sledmt. I do not feel memorization has anything to do with knowing music theory or knowing the essentials of Christian faith. If someone plays "nice" music without knowing any music theory, they are talented artists, not real musicians. If someone practices "nice" charity without knowing the Love of Christ as their own, they are nice people, not real Christians.
quote:
Real love is only available to pour out when it has been poured into you. No amount of knowledge or degree can fill that... That's exactly what I'm saying - Christians can only show "real" love when they know the "real" Source of Love. Orthopraxy is meaningless without orthodoxy.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 5:23:39 PM
|
|
|
didymus101
Posts: 1343
Joined: 6/13/2009
Status: offline
|
drmark, This is the third notice. Listen to what you said.
"That's nice intellectualism, didymus, but it does not address the simple truth that there is no meaningful orthopraxy without meaningful orthodoxy to underlie it." Compare this to what you wrote in post #45: "Doctrine has little, if anything, to do with righteous actions. By the grace of God and the power of the Holy Spirit, Christians do not sin!"
Which is it?
Also, sorry I have to laugh, for thumpteenth gazillion time again: no one, absolutely no one has suggested these extremes: "Can a person be a "true" Christian without knowing or understanding or applying any "formal" Christian doctrine? Is it enough just to "love like Christ" in order to be saved?"
Nearly every other post is making the love-emphasis people doctrine-haters. Two, three, or four times I have posted how I see the two are inter-related, and nearly every post I take time to reassure members that I find doctrine essential.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/25/2010 7:09:55 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 5594
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
drmark, This is the third notice. Listen to what you said. Frankly, didymus, I'm tired of your condescending attitude. I explained my position to the best of my ability in post #128 above. If you have nothing more helpful to discuss than your "laugh factor", please don't respond any more to me and I will return the favor. Thank you for your consideration.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/27/2010 8:13:40 AM
|
|
|
didymus101
Posts: 1343
Joined: 6/13/2009
Status: offline
|
The emergents have some valid points about the state of Christianity and Christians. Yet what becomes clear is that they are identifying more with the soul than with the spirit, it is more from a worldly perspective than a heavenly one.
In a world that appears to be becoming more dangerous and choatic everyday, the natural impulse is to prioritize efforts for peace, and this seems to be the major thrust of the emergents: dialogue, find some common ground. They insist it is not a movement but a conversation, an attempt to remove some of the "unnecessary" barriers that have kept both the world religions at odds and Christians fighting amongst themselves over who is the one, true faith. They see a world languishing in misery and heading down a path to destruction primarily due to stiff-necked religiousity, and see the Church, with its centuries-old intramural rivalries, as the main antagonist.
As these arguments and divisions in the Church seem centered around who has the "right" doctrine, sound doctrine is de-emphasized. A sympathetic ear at this juncture, with the whole planet in peril of erupting in cataclysmic battle, seems not only the wisest path but a Christian obligation. How many souls will be saved if we continue along the same self-destructive road? That is how they see the question posed to the Church.
Sound doctrine is vital. References to teachers or teaching sound doctrine, as I read in one article, appears some 240 times in the NT. One of our key responsibilities as Christians is to challenge and refute false doctrine. We are to use "exhortation" (the Bibical alternative) and apolegetics (reasoned argument in defense). Why? According to the Word, we do so in order that others are not rendered useless for "good works." Such defense is commended in 1Peter3:15, Phil1:7, and Jude3.
Deserting or diluting sound doctrine is not going to save the world: this is an expedient measure that can only lead to greater darkness and evil. It looks good on paper to those still identifying with the soul but being friends with the world makes us an enemy of God.
Is there a solution?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/27/2010 8:45:01 AM
|
|
|
didymus101
Posts: 1343
Joined: 6/13/2009
Status: offline
|
The early Church was hated by the Romans primarily for one reason: their love. Roman chroniclers during the three hundred years the faith was persecuted made sneering references to this "weakness." It is a well-documented "shortcoming" of early Christians.
And yet during this period, in the midst of continual persecution and oppression of our faith, the growth of the Church has never had a more fecund era. The message of Christ spread quickly through all of the known world and was embraced with courageous tenacity.
The main reason appears clear: their demonstration of faith and love.
The Romans, in their fervor to suppress and eliminate our religion, instead provided a stage that attracted the lost. Being "set apart" from the world, maintaining their spiritual perspective and not a worldly one, gave the fallen a clear choice of alternatives.
No rebellion or political movements against Rome: they stayed in the Word, acted as citizens of heaven alone. Their great love for one another came from an undivided and sole allegiance to the kingdom of God. They did not need secular representatives to defend or promote the faith. Whenever they were attacked by immoral and pagan Rome, they turned the other cheek and walked the extra mile. Nothing stopped or stayed them from their love of neighbor, showing a willingness to be tortured or killed so that others may be saved.
It was not a conservative or liberal willingness; it was one simply empowered by the Holy Spirit.
It was not a Wesleyan, Lutheran, or Calvinist approach and way of life; it was in Christ's name alone.
Sound doctrine is not the problem, if we preach and live it simply according to Scripture and not by any other name than Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/27/2010 10:04:05 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 8198
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: didymus101
Doctrine leads us to God, it does not replace God. We do not stand on our doctrine; our position, faith, is in Christ. It is in Christ, not a doctrinal tradition, we are to live and move and have our being.
But didymus101, from the above statement your "Doctrine" is that "our position, faith, isin Chist". Is that not so?
So what is wrong with your doctrinal tradition in the above statement; nothing. And what is wrong with right doctrin; nothing.
I just get the sense that you are trying to vilify doctrine, and I don't understand that?
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/27/2010 1:32:06 PM
|
|
|
didymus101
Posts: 1343
Joined: 6/13/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: didymus101
Sound doctrine is vital. References to teachers or teaching sound doctrine, as I read in one article, appears some 240 times in the NT. One of our key responsibilities as Christians is to challenge and refute false doctrine. We are to use "exhortation" (the Bibical alternative) and apolegetics (reasoned argument in defense). Why? According to the Word, we do so in order that others are not rendered useless for "good works." Such defense is commended in 1Peter3:15, Phil1:7, and Jude3.
Deserting or diluting sound doctrine is not going to save the world: this is an expedient measure that can only lead to greater darkness and evil. It looks good on paper to those still identifying with the soul but being friends with the world makes us an enemy of God.
RC, did you read the above. I do not know why you get that sense I am trying to vilify doctrine. I do not claim any "doctrinal tradition"; I have scripture and a long history of good teachers throughout Church history.
But as this opinion keeps coming up, and all my protestations that I believe sound doctrine essential are apparently ignored or disbelieved, let me make it plain.
Sound doctrine is vital for a child of God to learn what is necessary for salvation, both for his own soul and to lead others to Christ; it is vital as a guide in our progressive sanctification; and vital in order to exhort, rebuke, and defend against false doctrine.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A New kind of Christianity - 2/27/2010 6:38:39 PM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 8198
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: didymus101
Sound doctrine is vital for a child of God to learn what is necessary for salvation, both for his own soul and to lead others to Christ; it is vital as a guide in our progressive sanctification; and vital in order to exhort, rebuke, and defend against false doctrine.
So did you make all that up or was part of it someone's tradition that you decided was right and co-opted? Wouldn't that make at leart part of your doctrine to be doctrinal tradition?
Thanks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
