The emergent church

[Sneaksuit]

Emergent Church is dangerous heresy.

What's dangerous about it?

[concernie]

What's dangerous about it?

Didn't you watch the documentary on the previous page that someone posted? I think it's pretty clear what the danger is. The Emergent Church is basically New Age modernism with a Christian mask. The emergent church's most ardent supporters deny or water down the fundamentals of the faith. It's a sell out. Remove the offending truth in order to grow the "church."

[Sneaksuit]

I think it's pretty clear what the danger is. The Emergent Church is basically New Age modernism with a Christian mask. The emergent church's most ardent supporters deny or water down the fundamentals of the faith. It's a sell out. Remove the offending truth in order to grow the "church."

It's apparent in Jesus' dealings with the pharisees that tradition is secondary to new revelations, so then why grasp so stringently to millenia old beliefs? Of the currently reported 41000 Christian denominations, every one would be heretical to another to a certain degree. May I ask which one you belong?

[concernie]

It's apparent in Jesus' dealings with the pharisees that tradition is secondary to new revelations, so then why grasp so stringently to millenia old beliefs? Of the currently reported 41000 Christian denominations, every one would be heretical to another to a certain degree. May I ask which one you belong?

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that having strong doctrinal beliefs is akin to legalism?

[fluffy]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that having strong doctrinal beliefs is akin to legalism?

It's not a new thought that strict adherence to a literalist approach to Biblical teachings is in part responsible for the decline in numbers of traditional Christian membership in North America. Individual interpretations and personalizing of the "God concept" are strongly discouraged which strikes many as authoritarian in the light that the nature of the God concept is at its roots an intensely personal thing.

[grammafreddy]

Remove the offending truth

The problem with the "offending truth" is that none of it is "God's Word" but the words of mankind - some of it centuries after the supposed "birth of Christ".

[Sneaksuit]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that having strong doctrinal beliefs is akin to legalism?

If your relationship with God takes a back seat to your doctrinal beliefs, yes.

Why don't you answer which church you belong?

What's your response to the point that every church is at least somewhat heretical to another?

[concernie]

Another problem with the emergent church (evangelicals too) is that by coming to the reasoning that their fuzzy, warm concept of a relationship with God must come before doctrine, they have demonstrated their ignorance of the truth. God is fully just as much as He is merciful. His justice is revealed to us in doctrine. It is truth. There is no separating truth into separate components. To water down or discount doctrine is to water down and discount God's nature—His very essence. But people don't want to be accountable, so they go for what makes them feel better about themselves: a human-centric and feel-good doctrine of relativism and modernism.

[fluffy]

What is the source of your truth ? Feel free to go into some detail, that's what these forums are for, the open exchange of ideas.

[concernie]

What is the source of your truth ? Feel free to go into some detail, that's what these forums are for, the open exchange of ideas.

I think it's implied what my source of truth is seeing as I am defending Church doctrine. It's the Bible of course.

[fluffy]

Ah, I see. You speak of doctrine as if it involves a single interpretation of Biblical "truth". With so many different interpretations of the Bible available what are your thoughts on Biblical "truth" that differs from your own?

There is also a point of view that says "truth" is what the Bible (or any other book for that matter) says to you while doctrine is what others tell you the Bible says. This is kind of what I was saying earlier, that the traditional churches are losing ground due to inflexibility when it comes to Biblical interpretation. The predisposition that "one truth fits all" is coming off as dictatorial, and contrary to the idea that God has many faces so to speak.

[concernie]

Ah, I see. You speak of doctrine as if it involves a single interpretation of Biblical "truth". With so many different interpretations of the Bible available what are your thoughts on Biblical "truth" that differs from your own?

Yes, the rotten fruits of the Reformation. Divide the Church so as to conquer it. Prior to this subversion, there was no private interpretation of the scripture, as the Bible commands.

There is also a point of view that says "truth" is what the Bible (or any other book for that matter) says to you while doctrine is what others tell you the Bible says. This is kind of what I was saying earlier, that the traditional churches are losing ground due to inflexibility when it comes to Biblical interpretation. The predisposition that "one truth fits all" is coming off as dictatorial, and contrary to the idea that God has many faces so to speak.

This is exactly the problem with Protestantism. There is no unity, no truth, just splinters of denominations—all with their own independent interpretations. And now the post-modern Emergent Church is re-writing the Bible to fit its own universalist interpretation. If everyone gets to heaven, according to Emergenters, then what is the point of anything? One might as well be an atheist.

[fluffy]

The old adage "nobody is perfect" stands true in that we are all sinners to some degree or another, and that the way we view the world around us is flawed as a product of our sins. This was true even when the original authors of the various books of the Bible put quill to paper hundreds of years ago. Thus is it even possible that their interpretation of the word of God was skewed a little off center. That we cannot know.

Personally I believe that truth is where we find it, and that we will instinctively know what is wrong and what is right provided we are able to clear our own agendas from the picture. To believe that any one religious sect has God's word right and no one else does is more than a little arrogant in my mind, especially since the true word of God is known only to Him and that everyone who ponders his word is just going by their best guess.

[concernie]

Personally I believe that truth is where we find it, and that we will instinctively know what is wrong and what is right provided we are able to clear our own agendas from the picture. To believe that any one religious sect has God's word right and no one else does is more than a little arrogant in my mind, especially since the true word of God is known only to Him and that everyone who ponders his word is just going by their best guess.

But this is contrary to the nature of the Bible. It's what separates Christianity from many of its competitors over the last 2,000 years. Christianity is religion revealed; many other religions are religion concealed (the occult, for example). The Bible has no secrets. It's wide open. Truth is for everyone and anyone and cannot be reinterpreted privately so as to create man-made hierarchies and power structures. The occult operates on the same power-based system. Conceal knowledge—make it unknowable to everyone—so that man must find illumination through other men, usually through arcane steps.

[fluffy]

The Bible has no secrets. It's wide open. Truth is for everyone and anyone and cannot be reinterpreted privately so as to create man-made hierarchies and power structures.

Yet the work itself is fraught with inconsistencies, even contradictions. Is this the result of it having had so many contributors, each with his own take on the "word of God" ? These inconsistencies cry out for individual interpretation, don't they ?