Christian 'megapastor' blasts believers on Dec. 25 dispute (defends decision to close)

"perception is more important than reality."

It's not my perception of reality, nor do I believe that "the world" is all following the issue of whether some Christian churches have a Sat nite service rather than a Sunday one and therefore all U.S. Christians are money hungry and behave badly by not going to church on Sunday morning. That's a rather grandiose position, to think that the whole world is looking at what some Christian churches do on Christmas in the U.S.

And, by the way, I don't care about what the world thinks. They hate us anyway, just for being U.S. citizens, much less being Christians. That's like saying Bush should do what the French and Germans and Russians want us to do, to please them so they won't hate us. The only ones bringing attention to this matter, however, aren't other countries, it's other U.S. Christians making a mountain out of a molehill. But, like you, this conversation needs to come to an end. On that we agree.

That's like saying Bush should do what the French and Germans and Russians want us to do, to please them so they won't hate us.

If some Euro gets pissed and hates America, the only loss is that same said Euro's blood pressure goes higher for a day or so. Big deal. If people get pissed at Christians, or even just think Christians are no different than everyone else odds are they are never going to bother learning or paying attention to what we believe. The result of that is dying and going to hell. That's a little bit more...serious than being annoyed. Clearly, the two are not equivalent.

The Church isn't there to make us feel good. It's there to win the lost. Whatever effort, within the bounds of morality, to see that done should be done. That means swallowing pride and doing things we'd rather not do. When it comes to Germany disliking America, then screw them. But when it comes to getting the lost somewhere where they will hear the gospel preached, then whatever it takes.

I know I said I would say no more on the matter. Maybe someday I will learn to take my own advice.

"You need to protect your system as well. You are not a disinterested party. You have made many disparaging remarks about the Church and defined Her as outside of the true beliefs you hold. How is this any different from we indentifying what is orthodox and what is heresy? You do it too."

1. We do not have a headquarters on earth.
2. We do not have a binding system of creeds.
3. We have no mortal, sinning man reigning over a city state on earth that tells us what we must believe and practice.
4. We do not have any written pronouncements of "ANATHAMA" toward anyone who is not "baptized" into any particular system.
5. We do not hold that any people are not genuine Christians and not children of God based on their membership(s), or association(s), or any allegiance(s)or whether they have received any sacrament(s).
6. We do not try to determine the salvation of any person(S) based on the name(s) with which they may be identified.
7. We do not pronounce any people to be "heretics" one the basis of their disagreements with us or whether they use any particular name to describe their heritage.
8. We do not determine doctrine from history, but we judge history from one source, the written Word of God, and yet we have nothing in a system that binds souls, kings, rulers, governments, nations or history to us.
9. We do not automatically determine something or someone is identified with us or any system based on words in historical documents ("bishops," "Catholic" (meaning "universal," and so forth).
10. We do not determine that the words "the church" in historical documents automatically means that the writer was talking about "our system."
11. We don't read the designation "Baptist" into any text that uses the word "church," as to connect the two together.
12. We do not teach that having the designation "Baptist" or officially adhering to any "Baptist" doctrinal or positional treatise(s) necessarily puts us in good standing with God.
13. We do not teach that the salvation of any man's soul, or his access to God for favor/grace is in any way connected to ours or anyone's earthly ecclesiastical organization, church, system or creeds.

Doesn't your Bible admonish you to "hear the Church" (St. Matthew 18?)

Yes, in the matter of one person offending another, FIRST the offended party is to go directly to the alleged offender and state his case and seek reconciliation. The matter is settled there, and a brother is "gained," if the two are reconciled. That is preferred to taking the matter to the church.

If the alleged offender can't see that he is in the wrong, then the offended party is to take one or two others with him. This is also preferred to taking it to the church. Reconciliation is attempted.

The last resort is to take the matter before the church. It does not say "Roman Catholic Church." It does not say "Baptist Church." It does not say "Presbyterian Church," It does not say "Reformed Church." It says simply "the church." In fact, there is no designation before the word "church" in any such passage of Scripture.

"You know how Constantine knew about this group of Bishops? Because his mother, St. Helena, was an Orthodox Catholic, and that long before Constantine even converted himself or the Empire."

And these were the only bishops in existence, right? Even the title "bishop" does not designate the system, or what he may have believed. And in the same era were bishops (pastors) in various cities who would not have agreed to meet with any such council (Nicea) and went on as they had been serving the Lord, without hooking up to Constantine or Sylvester, or anyone else of like position. And many of these would have been men who held the doctrines of the Apostles, but saw no Scriptural warrant to organize in such a fashion.

And these were the only bishops in existence, right?

They were the only Bishops in existence throughout the Empire, and in Ethiopia, India, Persia, Armenia, Georgia, Scythia, etc. at the same time.

There were certainly little groups of heretics and schismatics like the Donatists here and there. None of them were part of a Church that stretched from one end of the earth to the other.

And many of these would have been men who held the doctrines of the Apostles, but saw no Scriptural warrant to organize in such a fashion.

Maybe they missed Acts 15.

[your verbose answer]

Can I help you understand the question better? I didn't ask you what the difference was between Baptists and your sad understanding of the Catholic Church. I asked how it is you can criticise others for holding to an orthodoxy and calling out heretics when you, yourself, as you just demonstrated with your long-winded, critical answer do exactly the same thing.

You claim to not hold anything "anathema" or "heretical" but your words here demonstrate otherwise. If you did not hold the things you list as anathema, why would you make such a big deal about them? It's quite obvious you think we are wrong and you are right.

Does that help?

Doesn't your Bible admonish you to "hear the Church" (St. Matthew 18?)

Yes, in the matter of one person offending another, FIRST the offended party is to go directly to the alleged offender and state his case and seek reconciliation. The matter is settled there, and a brother is "gained," if the two are reconciled. That is preferred to taking the matter to the church. If the alleged offender can't see that he is in the wrong, then the offended party is to take one or two others with him. This is also preferred to taking it to the church. Reconciliation is attempted. The last resort is to take the matter before the church.

You've offended me with your gross mischaracterization of the motives and actions of my fellow believers in Christ. To which Church do we go to solve our dispute?

Or is this Biblical charge only make the Church a referee for petty personal disputes but completely powerless to explain and teach the meaning of God's Revelation to us?

"Of course not. Because there is only one Holy Mother Church. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. No need to "designate" what is obvious to all and known to all."

No, this is obviously not known to all.

"...one Holy Mother Church..."

Not known in Scripture.

"...Catholic..."

Of course this means "universal." The word is not a Bible word. Because your system sees the word used (probably from the Latin root) in historical writings, it manipulates it to mean an earthly system under the headship on one sinning man who rules over one city state, and then a religious system by extension. Is your offense based in the fact that we find that one one sinning, non-vergin-born (I'm sure very nice and very intelligent, the current one being German) man to be fallible? The Bible speaks of things reconciled to God in one (in Christ), whether they be things in earth or things in heaven (Col. 1:20-23). It knows nothing of a system of earthy requirements developed by a human religious system obligatory over the face of the earth.

"Apostolic"

You mean, I take it, as a succession of apostolic authority through one man (the fallible one mentioned above), who has pronounced that not all things in the Bible are true. Only that "apostle" in the city state, and his associates may determine which parts of the Bible are and which parts are not true, I suppose.

I find no example of any apostle in Scripture that would have ever taken to himself such political prestige or would have allowed such heaping up of earthly honor on himself. They would more likely have be found hunting for a jail cell in which to spend the night, or a pot of oil in which to be boiled. Apostles would have been found traveling among local congregations teaching common people to hold on to Christ, the Head.

The one Church in the New Testament that is "Catholic" (meaning universal) is held together by its (the God-made union of every individual who has rested in Christ's Atonement and been given the earnest of the Holy Spirit (Romans; Ephesians) attachment personally to Jesus Christ. It includes those who are in Christ who have already gone to be with Him; includes those who cannot be touched presently by the religious powers of earth. It is not fulfilled in an earthy organization, although it potentially can be typified (pictured) by congregations all over the earth -- any place on earth; congregations of the sons of God who are striving together for the faith of the Gospel.

"Maybe they missed Acts 15."

There was one question to be answered by the Apostles in Jerusalem: whether the Gentile believers were bound by the Mosaic law regarding circumcision (a rite specific to the Jewish Nation).

And the conclusion was...

"...that we (the Apostles and the "certain men which came down from Judea - v. 1)) trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God...that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." (vv. 19, 20) "to lay upon you NO GREATER BURDEN than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." (vv. 28, 29)

"NO GREATER BURDEN."

So the Apostles passed on no system of administration. And the Jerusalem authority tends, through the history of the Book of Acts, to wane, as the Pauline authority continues through the remainder of the book, and NO GREATER BURDEN is ever added.

And through the Epistles, there is NO GREATER BURDEN in earthy religious things that have to do with any "Mother Church" in any place.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.