The Greatest Threat to the Church Today...

its just seemed like you were saying all Muslims were bad but that would be stupid so i figured it might be sarcasm and im asking?

 

um what makes your doctrine true? And how do you know for example god doesn’t have a 4th aspect or get powers from magic trees?

Yes you have a point that it keeps things standard and make it harder for people to just make stuff up or sincerely preach new things that they themselves believe but just having doctrine doesn’t make what it consists of true.

 

I have read up on it and find you are wrong. Athanasius helped prevent the doctrine of Arianism from entering into the Church.

Quantrill

 

Of course the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully understood by the time of Christ. Its not fully understood today. But we know more of the Trinity after Christ came and the Holy Spirit came.

No, the Trinity is not an invention of the Church. It is the truth, that has come to fuller understanding in the Church age.

Well, allah doesn't exist anyway, in any form. But Im not concerned with him.

Quantrill

 

Doctrine is a decision.
Its intention is to conclude investigation, to end discussion. The attitude is that this subject has been handled and the masses must accept it if they are to have viability.
Doctrine is top-down theology, the handing over of one's spiritual life to an earthly authority that may have an agenda that isn't entirely spiritual.
Doctrines are handcuffs. They keep people in line.

 

But was laughed at even by pro-Nicene theologians. A bit of a thicko.

 

Arius is a great example of what is being discussed here. The whimsy of doctrine.
He was branded a heretic by the First Council of Nicaea, exonnerated by the First Synod of Tyre and then rebranded a heretic by the First Council of Constantinopole.
Doctrine is a decision made by people with a personal agenda, and not the edicts of God. They are power grabs, not spiritual authority.

 

First off…I am NOT A MUSLIM IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

My Christian views are opposite…of the beliefs in Islam. If what you said was the truth then….there would be no Islamic terrorists, there would be no fights or arguments over religion. The fact is there are differences and those differences make a difference.

In the Bible Jesus said that He was the ONLY WAY….not A Way…to the Father. So if you take that statement alone there are not many paths to Heaven…only one…through Christ. He believe on ME…..not Muhammed, not Buddah..etc.

God is specific in the Bible how we are to believe and its nothing like what the Koran says. In the end God will come for His people…and those are the believers in Christ, those who believe who He said He was and what He came to do. Good will win and the unrighteous will suffer for all eternity.

You are right….not all people are bad, there are good people from all walks of life and religions. But this is the thing….in the Bible it says "good" is not enough…
If you do good deeds they are meaningless if you do not believe in Christ.

There will be a lot of good people who do not make it.

 

But surely what you believe in is just a projection of your own mind, just as the image made by those who like idols is a projection of theirs? You just kid yourselves you are living hundreds of years ago and call it 'faith'. It is shameful!

 

Shiva said,

Christ is the cornerstone of the Church…and we believers are the Church. There are unfortunately differences in how the Church takes things….Presbyterian vs Methodist vs Episcopalian vs Baptist….Catholic, because it divides believers and causes conflicts and conflicts brings out the sin in people.

I agree like I said before..these differences divide and that is what Satan came to do…DIVIDE AND CONQUER. That is a bad thing. The Church has held people captive in some instances. When believers start focusing more on what that particular Church believes…which are thought up by the men in power….then the focus shifts from God….to man and what man thinks. The Pope still has control over Catholic believers….in the same way Joel Osteen has power over his Church. Today unfortunately many Denominations are caving into political pressure and are not standing in Gods Word. They think that the Word changes…as does the seasons of the year as does the culture of the day. It's faith dejour….whatever man wants to make it.

It is about political power. Look at what is happening to the Presbyterian Church. I grew up Presbyterian but sensed something was going to happen and it did. They took their eyes off of God and put it elsewhere. And they will suffer as a Church body, God will see to that.

You do not offend me but I would hardly put Hagee in the same category as Phelps. While I might not like the method…I believe he basically says a lot of good things…while Phelps well…he is not a Christian in any sense of what the Word says a Christian should be. I hate to bring Osteen up but I feel he is dangerous in his message. Here he is…has the largest church in America…and I think his message lacks one big thing……CHRIST. Google Osteen Larry King interview and you will hear him deny that Jesus is the ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER, THAT THERE ARE OTHER PATHS.
And millions listen to that garbage every day…week. He sells books…and tapes…and I believe he is leading people in the wrong direction. With Him its all about feeling good about yourself…sin is not an issue.

 

I keep my eyes firmly focuses on God…Jesus…..the Holy Spirit. They indwell in my mind and more importantly my heart…and that is all that matters.
And in the end it will all play out won't it?

It is sad that you tell me it is bad to judge and then you turn around and judge me……IT IS SHAMEFUL !!! If you correct someone and imply that they are wrong…you state that there is a right.

Do tell me what is the truth, what is right?

 

Never lying to yourself to save thinking.

 

And what makes you think, even for one second, that atheists are free of that problem?

Tell me, how is running around accusing others of being a liar, after asking them how and why they think something (and getting it), in any way shape or form the exact thing you claim?

Have you invested even a single actual thought in churchmouse's response? Or are we supposed to take you opinion, which we already know, in a highly judgemental form as fact?

 

The greatest threat to the church today?

People actually using their brains and realizing that all major religions are based on nothing more then a leap of faith and are ALL a complete and total waste of time.

 

Two is a row.

Apparently vaccusous accusation is the height of ... using ones brains. Auto reject is the highest form of intellectualism?

 

Laughed at? 318 bishops attended the first council at Nicea to deal with the Arian controversy. Athanasius championed the Orthodox view that Christ was One with the Father, and was God the Son.

Arianism was refuted, rejected, and the first Nicean Creed created which stated, " We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible or ilnvisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten...not made, being of one essence (homoousion) with the Father...."

Of the 318 bishops who attended, at first only 5 refused to sing this statement. Then only 2. Arius and the 2 were anathematized by the Council and exiled by the Emperor.

(Ceaser and Christ, Will Durant, p.559-560)

Doesn't sound like most were laughing at Athanasius to me.

Quantrill

 

The attendance was limited and carefully fixed.

 

Arius is an example of the importance of correct doctrine. It was important to Christ and God, and is important to the Christian.

Arius was a heretic period. The same people that branded him a heretic, never changed their mind. The change came in the political power, not the Church.

Christian doctrine is spiritual knowledge gained from the Bible and set down in a subject category. The Bible is the source of that doctrine.

Quantrill

 

Where was it limited, and how was it fixed? "He summoned all bishops...." (Durant, p.659)

Quantrill

 

You are thinking it is facts that drive his resistance?

Do you actually expect him to conceed the point?

Or, will he also call you looney and recommend that you be ignored for being so terribly unreasonable?

The historical record on this stuff is not really in much doubt, but we see what happens, repeatedly, when so called reasonable and rational atheists are confronted with ... facts.

 

I suggest you reread the Bible. It clearly says that God wants to save everybody, not only a select few and he'll go to any length to do so. (Luke 15, 3 - 7). Can God save everybody? Yes: (Mt. 19; 25-26)
Jesus is "the true light that gives light to every man" (John 1:9) As Christians we may be lucky enough to see it, but that does not mean it only shines for us. Seeing this light does not only bring joy but also more responsibility (Luke 12: 47-4.

And on top of it: as good Christians we should not be so cocky (Luke 14; 7-11). Our faith is empty and dead without good deeds (James 2:14-26) and we might just be among those who cry "Lord, Lord" and still not make it into the kingdom because we failed to do Gods will (Mt. 7,21). To increase our chances to get there we should not pray like the pharisee and proclaim a supposed superiority above others but like the tax-colldector who focusses on his own sins and begs for mercy. (Luke 18; 9-14)

What's wonderful and truly is the "Good News" of the gospel is that His mercy reaches out to everybody: "I did not come to judge the world but to save it" (John 12:47). So He came to save the world rather than only a few privileged chosen ones who happen to follow a stringent set of fundamentalist Christian doctrines of belief. While not sharing this set of beliefs Muslims surely grasped the most important bit of Jesus' message when they call God "all-merciful". All of us - Muslims and Christians alike - are dependent on this grace and mercy.

 

When people make such claims without backing them up it sounds like more postmodernism bs. "History is written by the victors, the leaders of the church didn't care about the truth, it was all a power grab, blah, blah, blah."

It should be noted that Athanasius was exiled by Arian Emperors several times after the council, and he never recanted his views of orthodox Christianity. He practically spent the majority of his life in exile. Could it be that Athanasius actually believed in the orthodox Christianity, and was not some power hungry politician?

 

This is exactly the point. The problem the church has is that it's so interested in being popular that it refuses to stand on what is right.

 

An extremely ambiguous phrase. If you say that it is 'right', I, or any other number of people, will probably say it is "wrong" (or maybe even "left").

 

Christians had far more access to "scripture" - the Bible had not been put together yet - prior to Constantine than after. The Church leaders after Constantine put forth the idea that the only way to access God was through a priest.

When you say early church you should clarify. The concept of the Trinity (Jesus and God being of the same substance) was not even broached until Tertullian in the third century.

When this idea started to be taken seriously by some extremist sects such as montanists the idea that Jesus "was" God was declared heresy.

Dionysius was quite clear that this was heresy.

The early Church prior to Tertullian did not believe that Jesus was God. When the idea started to surface it was denounced as heresy.

Only after Constantine was did the idea that Jesus "was" God become mainstream.