Church...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BrownEyedBoy said:
Yeah, what Stamer476 said was my initial reaction. Most of the things you claimed to be as true are only assumptions.

Cheers

And your beliefs aren't assumptions? Show mme with documentation what YOU believe is truth.

The truth is that no one has the answers and no one ever will. It's the interpretations of the stories that matter, not whether or not they are 100% scientific fact.
 
Allright, Lies. I said I'd look into the David & Goliath situation for you, and here's what I got. I talked to a friend of mine who received his doctorate in Hebrew and teaches Biblical Hebrew at a Christian University. Let the technical babble commence . . .

The word translated in English to "forehead" in 1 Samuel 17 is the Hebrew "METSACH," the masculine-singular form of the noun. Its use here in 1 Samuel 17 is the common form of the word, generally meaing "brow" or "the forehead." It's the same word used in 2 Chronicles 26:19-20; Ezekial 9:4; and Exodus 28:38 among others. In all of these other references, the noun is unquestionably referring to the forehead, not the groin area. Although, in some of those verses, it would be very humorous if it was referring to the groin.:eeklaugh:

HOWEVER, there is a feminine-plural form of the word that has a rare occurance of being used to describe the leg area, although modern Hebrew translation has limited it to the leg area below the kneecap. This fact seemed very intriguing to my friend, and at this very moment he's deep into various textbooks exploring that possibility. More information to come soon . . .

So basically, the word here with David and Goliath is understood to mean the brow or forehead, and an interpretation that translates it as the groin area is unlikely at best. That being said, however, languages are a funny thing, and it's no secret that the male genitals have a number of strange slang nicknames. Back in the time of ancient Israel, I'm sure they had their fair share. I'll get back to you when I get the final conclusion.
 
It's the interpretations of the stories that matter, not whether or not they are 100% scientific fact.

I'm very open to freedom in Christ, but this is where things get a little bit dangerous for me. In my mind, it all comes down to credibility. If the biblical writers were not accurately recording history, then it doesn't matter much what the modern interpretation is, because what they wrote was just plain wrong. Their culture preserved history through oral tradition, and the accuracy of that history was incredibly important to them.

My point is, if the biblical writers were not accurate in recording the flood, the story of David & Goliath, etc., who's to say that they were accurate in recording the life of Christ? What if Jesus didn't really claim to be God? What if he never really came back from the dead? The historical truth of these claims is what makes Christianity possible. Without it, it's nothing more than a philosophical system, and our faith is in vain.

So that's my beef with discrediting Biblical accounts and simply saying that it's the interpretation that matters. The Christian faith is founded on the fact that Biblical accounts are true and accurate. Once we give that up, everything else will soon come with it.
 
stammer476 said:

who's to say that they were accurate in recording the life of Christ?

I understand your point of view completely. My personal answer to this question is that there is a non-religious source that proves the existence of Christ.

Based on what I said earlier, are you more inclined to the inerrancy view of the Bible?

I believe in the infallibility of Scripture; it doesn't need to be 100% fact for me to be a Christian and trust God and accept Jesus. Based on what I've learned about the historical/cultural contexts of certain Biblical passages, I believe that the intentions of the authors were not to produce a science book or history book. I'm definitely open to debate though.

There are a lot of things in the Bible that I'm skeptical about, but them being truth or not would never change my beliefs as a Christian. For example:

some of those REALLY old people
Jonah being in the belly of a whale
The Flood covering the entire earth

This is what I like about being a Calvinist - I don't have to waste my time proving whether or not these stories are true because the fact that they are/are not truth is far less important than the lessen of the story.
 
are you more inclined to the inerrancy view of the Bible?

I go back and forth on this one. The churches I'm associated with definately lean in the innerancy direction, but I'm a natural skeptic, and have trouble falling into the innerant pack simply because "God said so."

Right now, I'd state my belief as this: New Testament innerant, Old Testament . . . maybe. I admit that there are some narratives in there that are a little out-there, and there's a skeptical side of me that wants to question them. If you put a gun to my head, I'd say that the Bible is innerant. But if I get to heaven and find out I was wrong, I'd be totally okay with that.
 
I don't have to waste my time proving whether or not these stories are true

Man, oh man, do I feel you on this one. There are few things I loath more than having to hash out a long and technical debate on the historical accuracy of a Biblical passage, authorship, language, etc. But my experience has been that too many people riding on the fence between faith and doubt on Christianity are too easily swayed by liberal criticism. And if a good debate about the historical accuracy of Scripture can help them find Christ, then I'll gladly join in.

Personally, I'm weary of debating athiests and agnostics. It's not because their arguments are too difficult, but rather because we're both so firm in our beliefs that no amount of evidence will move either side. More often than not, it comes down to agreeing to disagree, and only after more than a little blood has been spilt.

That being said, I'm always up for answering any honest questions that anyone has about faith. I love exploring new ideas and having people sharpen my viewpoint.
 
stammer476 said:
I'm non-denominational

I've always wondered this: Is "non-denominational" sort of a denomination by default? Because there are lots of non-denominational churches, so it's almost like another denomination.....Now I can ask all the questions I've had about "non-denominational" b/c I've never met one before! Are you non-denominational because you subscribe to a random smattering of doctrines and theologies from many denominations, or are you non-denom because you don't like the idea of belonging to a denomination?

Maybe you can help me get over a bad experience I had with a non-denom church. Well, it wasn't really a "bad" experience, but it gave me really odd impressions of what they're about. I mean, I went to this non-denom church and they worshipped Robert Frost. The church had NO Bibles, NO crosses, they sang Frost poetry, read Frost poetry, their stained glass windows depict Frost, Lincoln, Washington, etc.....it was just such a weird place. (U2 played there once!).

Wait, is non-denom Christian? B/c now that I'm thinking about it, this non-denom church I was at wasn't really Christian at all.....

I'm not trying to criticize, I'm pretty ignorant about this....
 
Last edited:
Now I can ask all the questions I've had about "non-denominational" b/c I've never met one before!

LOL!! Happy to help.

Maybe you can help me get over a bad experience I had with a non-denom church. Well, it wasn't really a "bad" experience, but it gave me really odd impressions of what they're about. I mean, I went to this non-denom church and they worshipped Robert Frost. The church had NO Bibles, NO crosses, they sang Frost poetry, read Frost poetry, their stained glass windows depict Frost, Lincoln, Washington, etc.....it was just such a weird place.

Holy freeeeeakin' crap. I've been in the church a long time, and that is possibly the most freeky deeky dutch thing I have ever heard.

I've always wondered this: Is "non-denominational" sort of a denomination by default? Because there are lots of non-denominational churches, so it's almost like another denomination

Interestingly, that's a common critique among people who are in our "brotherhood," and they only say that because they've never actually been in a real denomination, and have no idea what they're talking about. EDIT: Ooh, now that I read, it sounds rude. I wasn't saying that about your question. I am just peeved at some people in our own churches. It was not directed at you at all.

Anyway, to answer your question. . . I'm in a non-denominational "brotherhood" of churches. And, yes, we're non-denominational because we don't believe in denominations. We started back in the mid 1800's with a guy named Alexander Campbell. He was a part of the Presbyterian movement, and came to the conclusion that too many of his church's policies were directed on tradition and not on the Bible. As he read the book of Acts, he saw that the early church was governed not by a hierchal system with traditions and by-laws, but independent churches who worked together as separate self-governed bodies. He believed that organized religion was getting in the way between the individual and their personal relationship with God. In a desire to move back to that model in Acts, he founded his own church. To make a long story short, many other people caught onto the idea, started their own churches, and we now have the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.

Ways in which we're not a demoniation: We have no written doctrine. We have no governing bodies. Each church is governed independently by it's own elders and pastors.

Ways in which we are similar to a denomiation: We do have several Bible Colleges, Seminaries, and Universities. We do have an annual convention. We do work together whenever needed.

Basically, our main goal is to be as similar to biblical churches as possible. We don't see the need to be "this or that Christian" or "this or that Church," but our desire is simply to be "Christian" going to (insert city name here) Christian Church. It's a loose system, basically. It has it's faults, but I sure enjoy it.
 
OK, thanks, that clerifies things. I was just reading the website of the non-denom church I attended and it didn't really seem (or seem to want to be) Christian at all. Here's their "beliefs":

1 Freedom of religious expression. All individuals should be encouraged to develop their own personal theology, and to present openly their religious opinions without fear of censure or reprisal.

2 Toleration of religious ideas. All religions, in every age and culture, possess not only an intrinsic merit, but also a potential value for those who have learned the art of listening.

3 Authority of reason and conscience. The ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, or a document, or an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.

4 Never-ending search for Truth. If the mind and heart are truly free and open, the revelations which appear to the human spirit are infinitely numerous, externally fruitful, and wondrously exciting.

5 Unity of experience. There is no fundamental conflict between faith and knowledge, religion and the world, the sacred and the secular, since they all have their source in the same reality.

6 The worth and dignity of each human being. All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice and no idea, ideal, or philosophy is superior to a single human life.

7 Ethical application of religion. Good works are the natural product of a good faith, the evidence of an inner grace that finds completion in social and community involvement.

8 The motive force of love. The governing principle in human relationships is the principle of love, which always seeks the welfare of others and never seeks to hurt or destroy.

9 The necessity of the democratic process. Records are open to scrutiny, elections are open to members, and ideas are open to criticism?so that people might govern themselves.

10 The importance of a religious community. The validation of experience requires the confirmation of peers, who provide a critical platform along with a network of mutual support.

Are any of these complimentary or contradictory to your own?
 
(interestingly enough, I'm right now writting a paper for theology class on Jonathan Edwards and what is genuine religion...)
 
On the surface, a lot of those sound good, but have too much of a relativistic/postmodern feel to get my endorsement. Our churches are very open, but not THAT open.

These are the statement of beliefs from the church that I grew up in:

Wyandotte Christian Church Statement of Faith

We Believe in God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit and that they are distinct personalities with distinct roles, but one God. And that One God is the Creator of the universe.

We Believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Savior, the Son of God who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on a cross, and was raised from the grave. He will return as our victorious Lord.

We Believe our salvation comes only through Jesus Christ and cannot be earned. It is a gift of God.

We Believe faith in Jesus requires repentance, confession of that faith before witnesses, and obedience to His Word. Baptism by immersion demonstrates our faith and obedience while it depicts our union with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

We Believe everyone who accepts Christ has the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit who acts as a Comforter, Guide, and Advocate.

We Believe the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God in its entirety and that it does not contradict itself. It is our guide.

We Believe the church, as the body of Christ, is the extension of Jesus Christ's character, attitude, behavior, and mission in our world today.

We Believe God gives gifts to both men and women through the Holy Spirit for the benefit of the church's ministry.

We Believe that humility in prayer is the foundation for all we do and that celebrating communion together weekly is beneficial for all Christians.
 
Hm....this is all my church has online, it's kind of "duh!" but anyway:

CALVIN CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH

CALVIN:

This part of our name identifies one particular congregation in the denomination called the Christian Reformed Church. The name goes back to the man John Calvin, who lived from 1509 to 1564. As one of the Reformers, he zealously defended the scriptural teaching of the sovereignty of God and structured a system of theology in which the glory of God is the supreme motivation for all of life.

CHRISTIAN:

When we use the adjective Christian in our name, we identify ourselves as followers of Jesus Christ, whom we confess to be God's Son sent into our world to redeem human beings and their world from sin and its destructive powers. In his life and teaching, Jesus proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God; in his death and resurrection and in his sending of the Holy Spirit, we experience the power to live a life for God; and in the promise of his coming again, we have the hope of victory over sin and evil.

REFORMED:

Our history goes back to the Reformation of the sixteenth century, a movement in which the Protestant churches reaffirmed the centrality of the Bible as the authority for doctrine and life. As we continue to call ourselves Reformed, we commit ourselves to be a church always reforming and being reformed by God's Spirit to reflect faithfulness to God and his Word in our world.

CHURCH:

As a church, we confess that we are called and set apart by God. As citizens of his kingdom in a broken and sinful world, we attempt to be faithful to God in thought, word, and deed, separating ourselves from evil actions and demonstrating God's power to heal and redeem broken and sinful people through our Lord Jesus Christ. We pledge to be servants of God until the day of Christ's return in power and glorious victory.
 
well . . . can't argue with that. That is, the statements from your church. The statements of the denomination, though, is another story. But we're all Christians. We've got the essentials straight. Let's not get into that.
 
Last edited:
stammer476 said:
well . . . can't argue with that. That is, the statements from your church. The statements of the denomination, though, is another story. But we're all Christians. We've got the essentials straight. Let's not get into that.

come on, let's debate! bring it.....

:p
 
stammer476 said:


My point is, if the biblical writers were not accurate in recording the flood, the story of David & Goliath, etc., who's to say that they were accurate in recording the life of Christ? What if Jesus didn't really claim to be God? What if he never really came back from the dead? The historical truth of these claims is what makes Christianity possible. Without it, it's nothing more than a philosophical system, and our faith is in vain.

You can't really compare the accounts of the flood with the gospels, they were written hundreds of years apart. That's like comparing modern writing to Shakspeare or Chaucer.

As well, the accounts of the life of Christ were not written that far after his death, I think Mark is the closest at around 25-30 years, John the furthest at 40-50 years. Whereas the "accounts" in Pentateuch were written a thousand years later, during the exile. It's not really fair to compare the "historical" accuracy of the life of Christ with the life of Abraham or Noah. The bible took shape over 1000 years, it must be interpreted with this in mind.

May I say that I am stretching myself to remember these numbers from my university days, it's been a while since I contemplated these things.
 
I totally agree with you. That comment was not meant for people who have that knowledge. It was written for those who see the Bible as a whole or who have very limited knowledge of it, and therefore discount its credibility because of strange narratives.
 
come on, let's debate! bring it.....

Lies, if you want to have an honest discussion on Calvinism vs. Armeniansim, I'm game if you're game. But let's do it through private emails. I'm not a big fan of theological sparring in public forums.
 
stammer476 said:


Lies, if you want to have an honest discussion on Calvinism vs. Armeniansim, I'm game if you're game. But let's do it through private emails. I'm not a big fan of theological sparring in public forums.

haha, that would be funny since my own personal beliefs tend to fall more towards Armenianism, but I still think Calvinist theology has the least amount of loopholes.
 
Loopholes. That's a nice way of putting it. I guess my thinking is this . . . you only have loopholes if you have a system. No system, no need for loopholes.
 
stammer476 said:
Loopholes. That's a nice way of putting it. I guess my thinking is this . . . you only have loopholes if you have a system. No system, no need for loopholes.

you and I, we're on opposite ends of the spectrum. I prefer Calvin b/c I feel that his theology is (though I may not agree or like it) the most systematic, the most sound, has no loopholes....where as you have no theology.

I'm not sure if you feel this way or not, but maybe you know people that do, and I'd like to ask, why do some people fear doctrine/theology? Do you see it as something that forces you do to things against God's will? Is there not a single doctrine you can agree with?

From what you wrote before it seems that on the surface, the only difference between your non-denomination is that you have no doctrine. My denomination is like yours in that we answer to no higher authority. We elect our own leaders and choose our own pastors and reverends.

I'm not trying to say I'm better, just trying to understand....please bear with me!

I guess I just can't get the point of avoiding doctrine.....

(BTW, you don't have to fear theological sparring here b/c FYM is not a public forum, it's accessible only to registered users)
 
I'm not sure if you feel this way or not, but maybe you know people that do, and I'd like to ask, why do some people fear doctrine/theology? Do you see it as something that forces you do to things against God's will? Is there not a single doctrine you can agree with?

It's not theology I disagree with. Certiain theologies (Jesus' incarnation; Jesus' sinless life; the work of the Holy Spirit; Grace as the method of salvation, etc.) are vital to our faith and I would not want to live in a world without them. The Bible has clearly spelled out these theologies, and it's only through criticism of the Bible's source, not its statements, that they can be questioned.

It's systematic theology (i.e. Calvinism) that gets to me. The idea of taking Scripture passages and forcing them together into answering all of the unanswerable questions about God just doesn't make sense to me. Calvinism and other systematic theologies seem to try to answer what isn't there. And answering what isn't there gets into personal opinions, biases, etc. . . . and before you know, there's crusades, witch trials, and burnings at the stake.

To me, it's just dangerous territory. I believe that there are certain issues God has specifically NOT answered for us, and we would do well to not answer them for Him. I'll quote from Philip Yancey in his book, Reaching for the Invisible God, "I have a book on my desk titled 'The Encyclopedia of Ignorance.' Its author explains that whereas most encyclopedias compile information that we know, he will attempt to outline the areas of science we cannot yet explain: questions of cosmology, curved space, the riddles of gravitation, the interior of the sun, human consciousness. I wonder if God has perhaps fenced off an area of knowledge, 'The Encyclopedia of Theological Ignorance,' for very good reasons. These answers remain in God's domain, and God has not seen fit to reveal them.

"Consider infant salvation. Most theologians have found enough biblical clues to convince them that God welcomes all infants 'under the age of accountability,' though the biblical evidence is scant. What if God make a clear pronouncement: 'Thus saith the Lord, I will welcome every child under the age of ten into heaven?' I can easily envision Crusaders of the eleventh century mounting a campaign to slaughter every child of nine or younger in order to guarantee their eternal salvation--which of couse would mean none of us would be around a millenium later to contemplate such questions. Similarly, the zealous conquistadors in Latin America might have finished off the native peoples for good if the Bible had clearly stated that God's overlooking 'the times of ignorance' applied to all who had not heard the name of Jesus."

My experience is that systematic theology does this very thing. A system of theology, by definition, cannot have major holes of God's behavior that are answered by "I just don't know." So to cover the areas that the Bible is unclear or otherwise silent, they develop theories (i.e. the beloved T.U.L.I.P., which I think borders on heresy) based on Scriptures that are taken out of their context or manipulated entirely.

On a personal level, my experience with God has been mysterious and ever-changing. The more I experience with Him and the more I learn about His nature, the more I realize He is an unpredictable, mysterious, undefinable being. God cannot be put in a formula. He's too big for that. He does what He does and we as finite, fallen creatures will never be able to comprehend all of the why's and how's. It's not our place to. Consider Job's complaint about his family and possessions being destroyed. You would think this book would be a great opportunity to explain suffering or why God allows bad things to happen to good people, but instead the main message is "God is God and you are not. Let's leave it at that." That may seem cruel or uncaring or downright illogical, but we know enough about God to know that He is not any of these.

Does God control every detail of the earth's movements, or does He randomnly intervene while generally letting things work themselves out? Does God create some people specifically to be condemned, or do we choose our own destination for eternity? Do we choose salvation, or does salvation choose us? Simply put: I don't know. And I don't think God has let us know. Scripture isn't clear enough to draw definite lines. Why? I don't know that either; I'll just add it to my list of questions to ask when I get to heaven.

One of the major tennants of our brotherhood in its earliest days is something I think Christianity would do well to observe: "Speak where the Bible speaks. Be silent where the Bible is silent."
 
Last edited:
Lies, on a personal level, let me say that I've truly enjoyed discussing these things with you. I've always sought honest discussion over matters of faith in an environment where both parties can respect each other and keep things as unemotional as possible. To your credit, you've asked some very intelligent questions, and you've caused me to really think through why I believe the way I do.

I'd strongly recommend reading the book I quoted from earlier, "Reaching for the Invisible God" by Philip Yancey. I think a better title for it would have been, "Christianity for Grown-Ups." It's deep, honest, and asks the tough questions most of Christianity is afraid of asking. It's deepened my faith and made me a more mature Christian. The publisher, Zondervan, is right in your area, so you might want to check it out.
 
stammer476 said:
Lies, on a personal level, let me say that I've truly enjoyed discussing these things with you. I've always sought honest discussion over matters of faith in an environment where both parties can respect each other and keep things as unemotional as possible. To your credit, you've asked some very intelligent questions, and you've caused me to really think through why I believe the way I do.

:D I think the most difficult thing about religious "discussions" is that too often people misinterpret what someone's said to be a personal attack or an attack of a certain religion or denomination instead of a good debate. For example, I'm not at all trying to put you or your beliefs down (which I see you understand) it's just that I've never *met* someone like you before and have always had these questions....so, thanks for not taking it personally! I'm sure I have more questions; I'll post them when I'm back from vacation...

I think the one thing that you and I have in common is that we both know why we are what we are and why we aren't what we aren't. For example, I know I'm Christian Reformed not just because I was raised that way, but I know what it is about Catholicism that I don't agree with and I know why I could never be comfortable in a Baptist church, etc.... I think before people are going to seriously debate religion or matters of doctrine, it's important to fully understand what you're arguing for or against. That's part of my discussion with you. I know a lot about all the major denominations except the concept of non-denomination. But your replies have given me a much clearer understanding, thank goodness no longer tainted by that odd Robert-Frost-worshipping church I went to.

And yes I am quite familiar with Zondervan, lol. I'm actually supposed to be calling them about sponsoring a youth writing festival my college has every other year...better get on that.....
 
Thanks for the response, Lies. I think this has been good for both of us. Let me know when you get back from vacation. I've got some questions I've always wanted to ask Calvanists, as well.
 
LivLuvAndBootlegMusic said:
OK, I am Dutch Christian Reformed and have been all my life and have gone to a tradition, conservative church my entire life, so I'm not sure if this applies to other denominations, but please post if you have anything to say!

What are your opinions on:

1. Overhead projectors/PowerPoints in church-

I HATE them!!! I think they are disrespectful. We go to church to listen and pray and mediate. Are we really not able to focus for an hour or two? I can't stand having PowerPoint shows with famous quotes, or the main points of the sermon. I think it's weak. Not to mention I work on computers all day, and often fix or help people create PowerPoints, the LAST thing I want to do on Sunday morning is to watch ANOTHER PowerPoint. I also hate them b/c churches often use them as substitutes for the hymnal. I can't sing hymns without the music, NOT just the words, but the music in front of me.

2. Praise teams-

:| It depends. I don't like praise teams with singers, mics, and a lot of instruments, b/c I've noticed that in many churches with this, if you take away the noise from the praise team, there's no volume coming from the actual congregation singing. It's also pushing the thin line between a worship service and a show. I don't mind the use of instruments in church services, but I'm not too keen on their being basically a band in front of church.

3. Contemporary music-

I can do without it, ALL of it. I was raised to love the old classic hymns. Last service I attended at my home church, we didn't sing a single song written after 1692. There's just something much more spiritual about a beautiful hymn, with translated lyrics from Latin, and a tune by Tallis, Bach, Beethoven...It seems like the newer songs are so empty, cookie-cutter. Sometimes they're not even theologically correct.


I supposed I should describe my home church services so you know where I'm coming from. Again, I'm CRC, so we have a very structured Order of Worship. Our minister (either Minister or Reverend, NOT Pastor) wears robes and preaches his 45 minute sermon from a pulpit. Our only sacraments are Baptism and Lord's Supper, which we celebrate the first Sunday of each month. I cannot take communion b/c I have not yet made Profession of Faith, which we usually do in the early 20's, after we take all the Catechism classes. We sing traditional hymns from the gray Psalter Hymnal. Our intrument is a huge old pipe organ in the balcony. We have adult choirs that sing VERY old and traditional songs, and some kids choirs. Sometimes there is a violin or flute accompanying. We belive in TULIP and really like the Heidelberg Catechism and sometimes have sermons on it as if it were cannonized scripture. For more, ask me questions or see http://www.calvincrc.org

Now tell me what you think of the three things I've commented on above.
Don't have any of those in my church. Come join!!!:wink:
 
stammer476 said:
Let me know when you get back from vacation. I've got some questions I've always wanted to ask Calvanists, as well.


OK, well, I'm not back yet but we got a dial-up connection so I'm ready when you are...
 
Back
Top Bottom