Posted on 02/21/2011 3:04:22 PM PST by Gamecock
Okay so getting back to the discussion. :-)
It seems that it is one of man's characteristics to want to elevate individuals, or organizations, to higher levels then we should, or require credentials of them. I'm reminded of who Jesus selected to be His disciples. They were fishermen, tax collectors and other "lowly" professions. Maybe the point we should be learning is it's not important what the name on the door is, or where the person went to school, but what is being said.
If this is our guide then the issue becomes how do you measure their words.
The point he's trying to make, I think, is that there is too much overemphasis on the existential aspect of faith where people are no longer satisfied with the simple aspects of preaching and sacraments; dismissing church for other para-church organizations that they find more existentially satisfying.
I agree with him to a point.
Your concerns are equally valid and present the other side of the coin.
See this video of how Horton sees it. Enjoy!
‘To be a Christian the Trinity is not optional’ — I agree.
In the article we find the following sentence:
“On the basis of the Great Commission-and the many passages that unpack it-the churches of the Reformation affirm that the true church is visible ‘wherever the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered.’”
This is, I think, a true statement. However, it should be borne in mind that there were really two reformations, a conservative one and, a little later, a more radical one. The point of the first was to reform the church, that is to say, strip away all the accretions that had crept in (mission/message creep) since the time of the apostles and that were either contrary to or distractions from the pure gospel of Jesus Christ. For the sake of discussion I will define the pure gospel of Jesus Christ, in condensed form, as that which the Apostle Paul writes in Ephesians 2:4-10. However, this is only a condensed way of speaking of the pure gospel. There is, of course, much more that could be said about the gospel, but it wouldn’t contradict what Paul has written here.
The effect of the first and conservation reformation was to leave many outward things in place: historical/traditional orders of service (i.e., liturgy) that revolve around and emphasize “the Word is rightly preached and the sacraments are rightly administered” and a very strong emphasis on the ecumenical creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian) as the center of the church’s (i.e. disciples of Christ spoken of collectively) faithful and public response to the truth revealed in the inerrant and infallible Word of God, that is, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The basic elements of the service of Word and Sacrament and of the Creeds were to be the confession not only of the church collectively but of all its members individually. In other words, the distinction often made today between so-called “Churchianity” and Christianity did not exist. But two things were recognized: First, that man is sinful, corrupt, and flawed and so just as the visible church had become corrupt in the centuries leading to the reformation, so too could it become corrupt again. Second, that finally only the Good Shepherd Himself knows who are His sheep. All that the church collectively could do was to take individuals at their word (that is, their confession of faith), encourage them by preaching and teaching to live out the holy Christian faith in their own lives, and then trust that God the Holy Spirit will do what we cannot and what the Holy Scriptures say He will do.
The second or radical reformation went much farther in trying to prescribe who and what a Christian is and should be and then requiring of him or her certain behaviors.
As the reader may gather, I am an adherent of the first Reformation and not the second. The second, I would say, was an over-reaction, seeking to do in another way (from the bottom up, so to speak) what the Roman pope tried to do (from the top down): prescribe in detail what is or is not Christian behavior and then endeavor to implement it in the lives of each of its adherents.
It may be that some, perhaps most, participants on this thread will disagree with my description and definitions. But in the interest of disclosure and honesty, it is my sincere and strongly-held perspective. And I am willing to discuss it with, hopefully, a large measure of civility.
It is further my opinion that the visible church in the United States today is very much subject to “mission creep.” I would even say frighteningly so. To the extent the church adjusts its message away from the centrality of “we preach Christ crucified,” (1 Corinthians 1:23) it engages in “mission creep.”
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.