Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[Cameramonkey]

The point of Matt's video is the disingenuous nature of the video. It was insanely biased and woke.

That commercial doesnt show us ALL washing as we ALL should. Only the "oppressor class" washing the "oppressed class" . That is the (woke) problem with that commercial.

 

[HoughMade]

The point of Matt's video is the disingenuous nature of the video. It was insanely biased and woke.

That commercial doesnt show us ALL washing as we ALL should. Only the "oppressor class" washing the "oppressed class" . That is the (woke) problem with that commercial.

It was clearly not aimed at unbelievers. It seemed to be more aimed at believers who it was accusing of not being like Jesus, even though the picture presented was skewed at best.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

It was clearly not aimed at unbelievers.

Just pure virtue signaling.

 

[foszoe]

It was clearly not aimed at unbelievers. It seemed to be more aimed at believers who it was accusing of not being like Jesus, even though the picture presented was skewed at best.

Was it supposed to be aimed at unbelievers?

I didn't take it that way either, which was another conclusion that Matt's video seemed to reach.

I took it as a message to believers to be humble even with those you disagree with.

It appears most of you studied the ad at a much deeper level than I.

Was there anyone that had their feet washed that a Christian would agree with? I didn't think so but I didn't analyze it to that level.

Was there anyone that had their feet washed that a Christian should not be humble towards?

You may have enabled me to understand more precisely why I was not bothered by it .

I saw it as a call to me as a believer to treat even those I disagree with with respect, love and humility.

I already do that with most if not all of those who were washing feet. I know I disagree with the views of most if not all of those who were having their feet washed.

I switched to my phone so forgive any errors. Posting elsewhere I don't try to be as precise as u do in this forum but my eyes are tired and I may have mistyped something in a long response.

 

[JettaKnight]

A lot of backstory. Let me catch you up!

I am a born and raised Baptist. Traditional Baptist soteriology is (no offense, JK ) trash.

No offense taken - I'm a five-point Calvinist.

Baptist are all over the map when it comes to soteriology - You have the fundamentalist free will on one end and the reformed Baptist (like me) on the other.

We're a confusing / confused denomination.

...
Thus, I am going to Hell because I am leaving salvation.
...

At the rick of sounding Orthodox, systematic theology and all the baggage it brings with it has removed too much of the unknown wonder. When you try to narrow things to one truth (e.g. surpalapsarianism), you prevent yourself from being awed by the divine.


Just know, historian, that others do keep you in their prayers, and that Christ's grace extends to a confused Christian like yourself even if you don't feel it.

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't understand much about Baptists. I do know that when I hear that some Baptists debate whether Baptism is "necessary" for salvation, it leaves me somewhat perplexed since I know what the word itself means.

I don't know any Baptist that would say it's necessary for salvation.

I do know most Protestants can be divided generally into 2 camps, those who believe in "once saved, always saved" and those who don't.

We always start those discussions on the opposite ends, but we end up in the middle.

The Calvinist would never defend the person who said the prayer at church camp, but then went on to live a selfish life. Nor would the Arminian say at a funeral, "We think they were a Christian, but who knows."

Pragmatically, we're all a lot alike - preaching the Gospel to convert, and disciplining the flock for sanctification.

 

[historian]

No offense taken - I'm a five-point Calvinist.

Baptist are all over the map when it comes to soteriology - You have the fundamentalist free will on one end and the reformed Baptist (like me) on the other.

We're a confusing / confused denomination.


At the rick of sounding Orthodox, systematic theology and all the baggage it brings with it has removed too much of the unknown wonder. When you try to narrow things to one truth (e.g. surpalapsarianism), you prevent yourself from being awed by the divine.


Just know, historian, that others do keep you in their prayers, and that Christ's grace extends to a confused Christian like yourself even if you don't feel it.

I appreciate all the comments.

I even read most of Foszoes

I guess in Lutheranism I was awed by the divine. There was finally something there that made me believe that Jesus did love me and that I could have a relationship with him (not in the hippy dippy worship music/Baptist alter call sense, but in a real way). But that relationship was expressed in the confession and absolution, the body and the blood. Now I'm going to be leaving that. I am walking away from the relationship so, as Lewis pointed out, Hell is full of people who don't want to be with God. I'm that person.

I'm not happy about it, but I can endure what I have for 37 years: a life apart from God. If it wasn't for the sake of my kids I wouldn't leave, but they need both parents on the same page religiously, so I have to take the hit for their souls. It will be worth the trade for me.

I guess in some way it is better for me than before, because I now know that it isn't arbitrary on God's part, but it is on me. I wish there was a better out. I really do.

 

[JettaKnight]

I wonder how many Christians today wash feet?

I know of a least one denomination that does.

I submit that if American Christianity wasn't so schismatic, it should be easy to finance an ad more suitable to American Christian thought.

Amen.

We should all demonstrate humility.

The ad recalled a scriptural reference that demonstrated humility.

I felt the video glossed over the fact that he washed Judas feet. What humility in that act. How Christ reached out even to wash the feet of Judas.

Preach!

Was there anyone that had their feet washed that a Christian would agree with? I didn't think so but I didn't analyze it to that level.

Was there anyone that had their feet washed that a Christian should not be humble towards?

You may have enabled me to understand more precisely why I was not bothered by it .

I saw it as a call to me as a believer to treat even those I disagree with with respect, love and humility.

I already do that with most if not all of those who were washing feet. I know I disagree with the views of most if not all of those who were having their feet washed.

Well, I know you mean that I'm not suppose to take that literally when it comes to Democrats. You're only asking me o wash the feet of people that accept Christ, right?

The point of Matt's video is the disingenuous nature of the video. It was insanely biased and woke.

That commercial [doesn't] show us ALL washing as we ALL should. Only the "oppressor class" washing the "oppressed class" . That is the (woke) problem with that commercial.

With all due respect, If you're looking for something to offend you, then how are you any better than them?
I am totally convinced now that the Pharisees would have called Jesus "woke" if they had that term.

I find myself aligning with the SBC in many ways, even if I don't go to an SBC church. And there's still a lot of atoning that denomination needs to do.

Sometimes humility means setting aside these political games, even if you're neighbor doesn't.

 

[JettaKnight]

I appreciate all the comments.

I even read most of Foszoes

I guess in Lutheranism I was awed by the divine. There was finally something there that made me believe that Jesus did love me and that I could have a relationship with him (not in the hippy dippy worship music/Baptist alter call sense, but in a real way). But that relationship was expressed in the confession and absolution, the body and the blood. Now I'm going to be leaving that. I am walking away from the relationship so, as Lewis pointed out, Hell is full of people who don't want to be with God. I'm that person.

I'm not happy about it, but I can endure what I have for 37 years: a life apart from God. If it wasn't for the sake of my kids I wouldn't leave, but they need both parents on the same page religiously, so I have to take the hit for their souls. It will be worth the trade for me.

I guess in some way it is better for me than before, because I now know that it isn't arbitrary on God's part, but it is on me. I wish there was a better out. I really do.

Funny you mention Luther, because I'm reminded of his Catholic life when I read your post - just this crushing sense of doubt and separation.

If I wasn't baptist, I would probably be Lutheran or PCA - something Calvinist.

Really more than a denomination is the need for true exegetical preaching - I will never (again) join a church that does topical preaching. Pick a book, and preach your way through it - warts and all.

 

[ditcherman]

I know of a least one denomination that does.


Amen.


Preach!


Well, I know you mean that I'm not suppose to take that literally when it comes to Democrats. You're only asking me o wash the feet of people that accept Christ, right?


With all due respect, If you're looking for something to offend you, then how are you any better than them?
I am totally convinced now that the Pharisees would have called Jesus "woke" if they had that term.

I find myself aligning with the SBC in many ways, even if I don't go to an SBC church. And there's still a lot of atoning that denomination needs to do.

Sometimes humility means setting aside these political games, even if you're neighbor doesn't.

So you’re saying you think Jesus would have been a Republican?

Purple if you must.

 

[JettaKnight]

So you’re saying you think Jesus would have been a Republican?

Purple if you must.

These days I'd say Jesus would be flippin' desk in Congress instead of tables in the temple.


Neither party fully promotes what Jesus espoused. And compared to twenty years ago, it's gotten to the point where Christians are just another voting bloc that politicians pay lip service to in election years, IMHO.

 

[foszoe]

At the rick of sounding Orthodox, systematic theology and all the baggage it brings with it has removed too much of the unknown wonder. When you try to narrow things to one truth (e.g. surpalapsarianism), you prevent yourself from being awed by the divine.


Just know, historian, that others do keep you in their prayers, and that Christ's grace extends to a confused Christian like yourself even if you don't feel it.

i loved your post for the last paragraph not because you took a risk.

Christians should do away with systematic theology.

The problem with theology schools is they hand out PhDs.

A PhD is given to someone who comes up with something new. I'd rather someone give me that old time religion. It's good enough for me.

You get the title not by living the Christian life but by dissecting it.

 

[JettaKnight]

i loved your post for the last paragraph not because you took a risk.

Christians should do away with systematic theology.

The problem with theology schools is they hand out PhDs.

A PhD is given to someone who comes up with something new. I'd rather someone give me that old time religion. It's good enough for me.

You get the title not by living the Christian life but by dissecting it.

I'm not taking Grudem's Systematic Theology off my shelf, but I'm also not going to take it as seriously as I used to.

 

[foszoe]

I'm not taking Grudem's Systematic Theology off my shelf, but I'm also not going to take it as seriously as I used to.

Me either but then again, I never heard of him

 

[foszoe]

I'm not taking Grudem's Systematic Theology off my shelf, but I'm also not going to take it as seriously as I used to.

Okay, I went and skimmed Wikipedia and found this

Grudem and Bruce A. Ware were at the center of Trinitarian debate in 2016 that began online[13] and culminated in print publications.[14][15] Both Grudem and Ware subscribe to a view of the Trinity called "eternal relations of submission and authority" or "eternal functional subordination" which claims that the Son is eternally submissive to the Father.[16] Their view was challenged by some scholars that the Son only submits to the Father in the incarnation according to his human nature.[17][18]

So then I went and read his paper, https://www.waynegrudem.com/wp-cont...ernal-submission-of-the-Son-to-the-Father.pdf

where I found this referring to the use of the term "subordination"

It does not seem to me that very much is at stake here. This is a minor difference of opinion over the wisdom of using a particular word.

Which made me chuckle because it reminded me of the scripture Matt 5:17-18

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Which made me snicker as it also reminded me of the First Ecumenical Council and the Creed

Homoousios is a Greek word meaning "same substance" or "same essence." It is used in the Nicene Creed to say that Jesus Christ is of one essence with the Father. Although it does not appear in the Bible, the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council ultimately decided that this was the best language to use concerning the Holy Trinity.

The competing term at that council was homoiousios meaning "similar essence"; it was favored by the Arians. Because of how close these two words are in the Greek, it has been said that there was only "one iota" of difference between them.

Now I have expanded my horizons for the day

In fairness to Grudem though, he does further expand and offer more clarity or color commentary in his paper which I cited if anyone wants to read.

 

[DadSmith]

A couple of decades ago, the surprising thing was many converts were males, which was somewhat unusual. After all when we think of the sexes and church going, the usual thought is women Orthodoxy can be somewhat physically demanding. Back then it was jokingly referred to as the Marine Corps of churches.

In the last few years though, i have been surprised, pleasantly, at the number of young people coming into the church. A common theme seems to be Matthew 7:24-27. Many are looking for something that is not changing, not trying to constantly be relevant. We have baptized 3 families this year. It's actually getting crowded in there on Sundays

There also seems to be a get back to the roots movement out there. I am seeing it manifested in newfound interest in Jewish traditions for example. 30 years ago, if a sign with the word "Lent" wasn't in front of a Catholic or Orthodox parish, I took notice, now its almost commonplace.

Orthodoxy is about a relationship with Christ, not a juridical stance. I remember once being told by a pastor that being saved was like standing in front of the throne of judgement and God puts on "glasses" and sees Christ instead of me.

Protestants and Catholics share the same phronema. They talk the same language. That is why, as an Orthodox Christian, its hard to even have a conversation because sometimes even the words have different meanings. I have mostly given up trying.

I will just offer this up as what I mean by a relationship. Read John 3:29. Ask someone who you know is Christian what that scripture means. There are several good commentaries online. Read them.

Now, going back to my Orthodoxy is about a relationship, not "getting saved". This may end up as a foszoe post, historian, even though I didn't intend to .

Our day starts at sunset. So Holy Week starts on Palm Sunday at dusk. Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday night are called the Bridegroom matins services. In case you don't know, matins means morning, vespers means evening. Usually the service at dusk is vespers but Holy Week is "different" on many levels that I won't get into here.

On Sunday night the icon known as Christ the Bridegroom is processed through the church and placed on the lectern at the front. The faithful then come to venerate and kiss the icon. At that moment YOU are mystically the bride marrying your bridegroom.

Now what does Jesus pray? John 17:20-23.

What is more one then a rightful relationship than husband and wife? Matt 19:5, Eph 5:31.

In the Orthodox Church wedding service, you are crowned with crowns. These are the crowns of Martyrdom for that is what you are called to do in marriage. Sacrifice all that you are for the other. What does Christ do for us? He dies for us. In the Icon of the Bridegroom, he is crowned with his crown of thorns. He sacrifices all for YOU.

So lets go back to John 3:29.

In the Jewish tradition, after the wedding, the bride and the bridegroom are led off to the chamber. The friend of the bridegroom, the best man, stands outside. When he hears the bridegroom's voice call out. The wedding is consummated. Sure it can mean that John is happy to hear the preaching of the Lord, but there is a deeper meaning to the scripture.

When I say Orthodoxy is about a relationship with Christ, it doesn't just mean that I read my bible daily or that I read the lives and writings of the saints to encounter Christ through those who are precious in His sight. It means I seek union with Him. That is the goal, that we may be one.

That is my hearts desire, God to see me as I am and still love me enough to save me. God always comes to meet us where we are and God always knows where he wants to take us and where we will go.

John 21:15-19.

Twice Jesus asks Peter do you love (agape, love unconditionally) me? Twice Peter answers I love (philo, brotherly love) you. The third time, Jesus asks Peter do you love (philo) me? and Peter was GRIEVED and answers you know that I love (philo) you.

Jesus, in his condecension, met Peter where he was and then tells him where he will go. I think Peter was grieved not because he was asked 3 times but because, as he says, the lord knew he loved Him differently than what the Lord desired. The words above are greek but some scholars tell us it is likely Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic not greek. Now I don't know if Aramaic has 2 words for love that are distinctive like the Greek. But the sense is definitely lost in English translation.

Which do you want? A relationship or not to go to hell? The saints tell us the lowest form of spirituality is because we do not want to go to hell. If that is what it takes to get someone into a relationship with Christ then let it begin there, but may it blossom forth to so much more!

Just John 3 verses 29 and 30.

The bridegroom is the one that has the bride. So the context is this, the people we're speaking about is Israel who are responding to Jesus, and his disciples coming to their immersion.
He's saying this group is the bride, and who's the bridegroom? The groom is Christ. So it's only right for this to happen, and what is John's role in this, and what is his response to all this?
Verse 29, but the friend of the bridegroom. So the grooms close friend. He is put in that position. Why? Because he's trustworthy because of this relationship, they have a friendship, and that word is one of the words for love.
So the friend that is the loved one of the groom, he is going to be what? He is going to be with the groom.
It says, verse 29 for the friend of the groom he stands and he listens to him.
Listening for what the groom has to say.
Let's bring about the conclusion of what we've been working towards this wedding.

Notice, it says that the friend has great joy on account of the voice of the groom. He rejoices, he's not feeling left out, he's not feeling jealous. No, he wants that. Why? Because he loves his friend, and he wants, what's right? He wants the Fulfillment, and that's what John's saying.
He Delights in the fact he's not jealous. He's not insecure. He is delighting in the fact of God's stated purpose.
John received that call, it was to prepare the way, and now his work is coming to an end.

His task is being completed, so he has great joy. And he says, therefore, this joy of mine is complete. And he says, that one (Christ) must increase and I must want decrease, and that message is true for all of us.

See, here's the problem today in many people's understanding of the gospel, is that I'll receive the gospel, so that I'm not going to be punished. And when I die, I'll go into heaven. And now I have a relationship with God for what purpose. So that God can help me. And when I want his help, when I need his help, when things aren't going the way I want them. I can turn to God, and he'll make my will a reality for me. No, That is what I call Christian idolatry. That's not the purpose.

The purpose is that we must become less. That is all of my dreams must shrink. All of my desires must evaporate. I must become less. That's what he says. And he must become more.

Christ for every believer. He needs to become more of who we are, and then we start understanding more, and more of his purposes, and his plans so that they can become our purposes, and our plans, and his reality becomes the truth of our life, the passion of our very existence.

 

[foszoe]

https://apnews.com/article/america-...tive-beliefs-9286431a0ddde91c928e5d411795c1fe

What does it mean to claim the US is a Christian nation, and what does the Constitution say?

 

[foszoe]

A nice re

Just John 3 verses 29 and 30.

The bridegroom is the one that has the bride. So the context is this, the people we're speaking about is Israel who are responding to Jesus, and his disciples coming to their immersion.
He's saying this group is the bride, and who's the bridegroom? The groom is Christ. So it's only right for this to happen, and what is John's role in this, and what is his response to all this?
Verse 29, but the friend of the bridegroom. So the grooms close friend. He is put in that position. Why? Because he's trustworthy because of this relationship, they have a friendship, and that word is one of the words for love.
So the friend that is the loved one of the groom, he is going to be what? He is going to be with the groom.
It says, verse 29 for the friend of the groom he stands and he listens to him.
Listening for what the groom has to say.
Let's bring about the conclusion of what we've been working towards this wedding.

Notice, it says that the friend has great joy on account of the voice of the groom. He rejoices, he's not feeling left out, he's not feeling jealous. No, he wants that. Why? Because he loves his friend, and he wants, what's right? He wants the Fulfillment, and that's what John's saying.
He Delights in the fact he's not jealous. He's not insecure. He is delighting in the fact of God's stated purpose.
John received that call, it was to prepare the way, and now his work is coming to an end.

His task is being completed, so he has great joy. And he says, therefore, this joy of mine is complete. And he says, that one (Christ) must increase and I must want decrease, and that message is true for all of us.

See, here's the problem today in many people's understanding of the gospel, is that I'll receive the gospel, so that I'm not going to be punished. And when I die, I'll go into heaven. And now I have a relationship with God for what purpose. So that God can help me. And when I want his help, when I need his help, when things aren't going the way I want them. I can turn to God, and he'll make my will a reality for me. No, That is what I call Christian idolatry. That's not the purpose.

The purpose is that we must become less. That is all of my dreams must shrink. All of my desires must evaporate. I must become less. That's what he says. And he must become more.

Christ for every believer. He needs to become more of who we are, and then we start understanding more, and more of his purposes, and his plans so that they can become our purposes, and our plans, and his reality becomes the truth of our life, the passion of our very existence.

Ply. I relinquish my title of long posts to you!

Another way to phrase the increase/decrease is is transforming our lives in Christ. We offer ourselves and everything we are to Christ and he transforms us into his likeness.

 

[historian]

Funny you mention Luther, because I'm reminded of his Catholic life when I read your post - just this crushing sense of doubt and separation.

If I wasn't baptist, I would probably be Lutheran or PCA - something Calvinist.

I really identify with Luther. I have the same conscience he did. I think that is why I like Lutheranism. It provides real assurance of salvation. Not just the warm fuzzies, but God providing it for you in absolution and communion.

Church sucks again for me. When you would do anything to have that relationship but can't. That's what hurts. Seeing others have what you walked away from.

 

[ditcherman]

I really identify with Luther. I have the same conscience he did. I think that is why I like Lutheranism. It provides real assurance of salvation. Not just the warm fuzzies, but God providing it for you in absolution and communion.

Church sucks again for me. When you would do anything to have that relationship but can't. That's what hurts. Seeing others have what you walked away from.

I still don’t get it - the whole “can’t” part.
But that’s ok, not asking for more.
Just wanted to say I hope you can find what you’re looking for in your journey.

I believe God meets us where we are.