The emergent church

[Sneaksuit]

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.

Without evidence, such as academic referencing or Bible quotes, these statements convey only your beliefs.

[Sneaksuit]

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

Bible doctrines are by the thousands, depending on whose interpretation you believe.

[fluffy]

Bible doctrines are by the thousands, depending on whose interpretation you believe.

That's what's on my mind. With so many interpretations available, and no way to know if any one of them is right, are we to simply accept the word of the author of any given doctrine as "God's word". To take it a step beyond that, there is a basic flaw in the argument that the Bible is the true word of God because it says so in the Bible. At best we would be witnessing yet another interpretation of God's word by any one of the authors involved. Not to say there aren't some relevant moral teachings in the Bible, but the assertion that is God's word in a sense other than metaphorical is a pretty tough nut to swallow. This is where the more progressive religions are winning out over their traditional counterparts, they are putting the interpretation of God's word back in the hand of the individual.

[Sneaksuit]

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.

How is that possible when every interpretation begins as private? It's one reason why there was ALWAYS internal strife. Do you remember Paul's argument with Peter about the gentiles? Ask a New Testament scholar such as Bart Ehrman if, in fact, the church has ever been united in doctrine to discover not. Eastern Orthodox, to give an obvious example, was distinct from Roman Catholicism five centuries before Luther's "private interpretation" triggering the Reformation.

This is exactly the problem with Protestantism. There is no unity, no truth, just splinters of denominations—all with their own independent interpretations.

Surprisingly, scholars of early Christianity claim that there was a wider variety of Christian beliefs during the first few centuries of Christianity than today!

And now the post-modern Emergent Church is re-writing the Bible to fit its own universalist interpretation.

It can be added to the pile of different bibles which already exist. Can we discuss yours?

If everyone gets to heaven, according to Emergenters, then what is the point of anything? One might as well be an atheist.

Was Jesus bribed into following the Golden Rule?

[fluffy]

What direction do your beliefs run in Sneaksuit ?

[concernie]

Bible doctrines are by the thousands, depending on whose interpretation you believe.

The Early Church councils settled doctrinal disputes, and there was Church unity and harmony for a thousand years (millennial reign of Christ) or more. Then the Protestant Reformation happened (Satan unleashed for a short time). This post-millennialist concept is the oldest, most Orthodox, most consistent, and most biblically sound.

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 ?

Individual interpretations on what, for example?

[fluffy]

Individual interpretations on what, for example?

That would depend on how big a picture you're looking at. There are differing opinions within the church as to the true nature of Biblical "miracles" and how much poetic license the author(s) took in describing events, to some more recent attempts to reconcile modern scientific fact with things like young earth creationism, both of which indicate a move away from Biblical literalism. This really does come back to the age old question of "Does God exist?" and the ramifications of various approaches to that question. The traditional "humanized" Biblical description of God, the white robes/white hair/crown of fire and so on, is getting to be a pretty hard pill to swallow for many, even within Christian churches and that is leading the way to a more metaphorical approach to the Bible. It is becoming less of an accurate historical account and more of a collection of fictional or semi-fictional accounts meant to carry a moral lesson. Given the unprovable nature of the Bible's actual authorship, even the "God" question itself, many are much more comfortable with a set of beliefs that allow them to keep their options open so to speak, and not be forced into accepting as fact something that goes directly against known scientific fact.

[Sneaksuit]

The Early Church councils settled doctrinal disputes, and there was Church unity and harmony for a thousand years (millennial reign of Christ) or more.

For the sake of clarity, please specify which church councils and doctrinal disputes you're referring to because there are several disputes stretching from the 4th century up to the Reformation in the 16th, including the Photian Schism, east-West Schism, and Western Schism just to mention a few of the major ones involving Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, and Western Catholicism. Disputes within the church were many and varied, concerning doctrines of the Trinity, Jesus nature, and the role of the church and its authorities, but what is important is that the disputes did not only represent conflict between religious figureheads but of power struggles between political powers.

This argument could be more constructive if we knew your denomination.

[Sneaksuit]

What direction do your beliefs run in Sneaksuit ?

I believe the universe evolves with purpose.

[Glacier]

The Early Church councils settled doctrinal disputes, and there was Church unity and harmony for a thousand years (millennial reign of Christ) or more. Then the Protestant Reformation happened (Satan unleashed for a short time).

Neither the Scientific Revolution nor the Enlightenment could have thrived if it had not been preceded by the Protestant Reformation. God bless Miroslav Šatan.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
~ Galileo Galilei

[fluffy]

I believe the universe evolves with purpose.

"...with purpose." Would that involve some sort of predetermined direction ?

[fluffy]

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
~ Galileo Galilei

I'll likely get a little mileage out of that one.

[grammafreddy]

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.
~ Galileo Galilei

I'll likely get a little mileage out of that one.

[concernie]

For the sake of clarity, please specify which church councils and doctrinal disputes you're referring to because there are several disputes stretching from the 4th century up to the Reformation in the 16th, including the Photian Schism, east-West Schism, and Western Schism just to mention a few of the major ones involving Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholicism, and Western Catholicism. Disputes within the church were many and varied, concerning doctrines of the Trinity, Jesus nature, and the role of the church and its authorities, but what is important is that the disputes did not only represent conflict between religious figureheads but of power struggles between political powers.

I am not talking about disputes within the liturgical core. Those disputes are minor and insignificant next to those among Protestantism.

This argument could be more constructive if we knew your denomination.

How would it make it more constructive? I am obviously not Protestant. That's all I will say.

Neither the Scientific Revolution nor the Enlightenment could have thrived if it had not been preceded by the Protestant Reformation.

Actually the occult-based scientific revolution (Newtonian physics, alchemy, etc.) and the Masonic enlightenment were and are closely allied with the Protestant Reformation. Take the concubine Anne Boleyn, for example, and her Kabbalist daughter Queen Elizabeth II, and her court astrologer John Dee. Dee laid the framework for what became the Grand Lodge of Freemasonry in England, while Elizabeth purged the last vestiges of "Popery". And on the other side of the equation, continental Freemasonry was working the "Enlightenment" and the bloody French Revolution. Those revolutionaries were explicit in their goal of toppling throne and altar.

[fluffy]

It's hard not to draw parallels between the Protestant Reformation and the emerging churches of today. The Reformation was borne out of a general dissatisfaction of the clergy of the day, people looking for something more than empty ritual pushed by people more interested in personal wealth and power than providing spiritual direction. The new churches of today are attracting the same set of dissatisfied spiritual searchers who are coming away from traditional Christianity unfulfilled, and carrying more questions than answers.