Christian Denomination Selector

[Maniac Craniac]

"Rule changes," if you will, have always been a part of the game. This thread isn't big enough to list all of the Biblical examples. I'd be more wary of a church that refused to change than one willing to admit error and make necessary adjustments. Acts 15 also shows that there is precedent for congregation leaders to make decisions (changes) based in scripture.

Maybe I can give you a contemporary, hypothetical example.

Let's say that Church A forbade its members from using Substance X on the grounds that it was illegal (Romans 13:1), carried a social stigma (1 Cor 10:32) and harmful to your health (Romans 12:1). Ten years later, the laws of the country change, makng Substance X legal for medicinal use due to new research that suggests both curative properties and a better understanding of how to use it safely. Church A responds by telling its members that so long as they get legal prescriptions, it is a personal choice to use Substance A.

And THERE we have the heart of the issue. God's law didn't change, but how it applies in context did. A person looking to be critical might say that Church A changed their rules and therefore cannot be relied upon for accurate application of scripture. A Christian knowledgeable of the scriptures might say that Church A is doing exactly as the scriptures recommend: (Eph 5:10).

That's just a simple, straightforward example- other reasons for change might be that linguistic or historical research further clarifies certain Bible teachings. Or that modern technology makes it much easier to cross-reference and allow for a more conplete picture of what certain scriptures are saying. Church A certainly couldn't be faultrd for not getting it right the first time- certainly not in the eyes of God- rather, the opposite is true. Their efforts to teach and abide by what is true shows thst they are WAY ahead of many other religions. I hate to break it to die-hard fundamentaliststs (no, actually I don't), but CHANGE is good. And necessary, since most of what your Church teaches
contradicts what the Bible says. Either change or be unrepentently wrong- those are your only options. Now, as I mentioned above, the Bible is explicitly clear on what to look for to help identify those doing God's will. I won't make this post any longer by listing them, but I will point out that "avoiding rule changes" or "always being right" are not included. It may sound right to many people that God's true people don't need to improve, but only if you are not familiar with the ENTIRE history of God' dealings with humans.

[Maniac Craniac]

Please forgive my stupid typos. I'm aware thay they are there, but my stupid phone won't let me scroll down a huge block of text like that in order to fix it. banghead

[sanantone]

"Rule changes," if you will, have always been a part of the game. This thread isn't big enough to list all of the Biblical examples. I'd be more wary of a church that refused to change than one willing to admit error and make necessary adjustments. Acts 15 also shows that there is precedent for congregation leaders to make decisions (changes) based in scripture.

Maybe I can give you a contemporary, hypothetical example.

Let's say that Church A forbade its members from using Substance X on the grounds that it was illegal (Romans 13:1), carried a social stigma (1 Cor 10:32) and harmful to your health (Romans 12:1). Ten years later, the laws of the country change, makng Substance X legal for medicinal use due to new research that suggests both curative properties and a better understanding of how to use it safely. Church A responds by telling its members that so long as they get legal prescriptions, it is a personal choice to use Substance A.

And THERE we have the heart of the issue. God's law didn't change, but how it applies in context did. A person looking to be critical might say that Church A changed their rules and therefore cannot be relied upon for accurate application of scripture. A Christian knowledgeable of the scriptures might say that Church A is doing exactly as the scriptures recommend: (Eph 5:10).

That's just a simple, straightforward example- other reasons for change might be that linguistic or historical research further clarifies certain Bible teachings. Or that modern technology makes it much easier to cross-reference and allow for a more conplete picture of what certain scriptures are saying. Church A certainly couldn't be faultrd for not getting it right the first time- certainly not in the eyes of God- rather, the opposite is true. Their efforts to teach and abide by what is true shows thst they are WAY ahead of many other religions. I hate to break it to die-hard fundamentaliststs (no, actually I don't), but CHANGE is good. And necessary, since most of what your Church teaches
contradicts what the Bible says. Either change or be unrepentently wrong- those are your only options. Now, as I mentioned above, the Bible is explicitly clear on what to look for to help identify those doing God's will. I won't make this post any longer by listing them, but I will point out that "avoiding rule changes" or "always being right" are not included. It may sound right to many people that God's true people don't need to improve, but only if you are not familiar with the ENTIRE history of God' dealings with humans.

These aren't the kind of rule changes I'm talking about. I'm talking about changes that are strictly biblical and have nothing to do with the laws of governments i.e. unbaptized infants being stuck in limbo and priests not being allowed to marry. I didn't say rule changes should be avoided; I did imply that they are necessary when people blatantly misinterpret the Bible in the first place.

[Maniac Craniac]

Z

These aren't the kind of rule changes I'm talking about. I'm talking about changes that are strictly biblical and have nothing to do with the laws of governments i.e. unbaptized infants being stuck in limbo and priests not being allowed to marry. I didn't say rule changes should be avoided; I did imply that they are necessary when people blatantly misinterpret the Bible in the first place.

Wow. Then you and I are in complete agreement.

I was just thinking this morning about the irony of the antichrist teaching. The only three statements in the Bible about the antichrist are the exact opposite of what most churches teach about the antichrist. The really, really crazy irony is that the Biblical statements are there SPECIFICALLY to DEBUNK those false idea, but it is those false ideas that peiple actually attribute to the Bible. It seriously boggles my mind how people can get it so twisted. It would be like MIT teaching that Isaac Newton's writings disproved the existence of gravity, or if history were to remember Richard Dawkins as an outspoken Roman Catholic.

[IrishJohn]

A lot of this has to do with not wanting to let go of pagan traditions.

I wouldn't be so quick to castigate "pagan traditions". Both Judaism and Christianity, especially the latter, owe much to the pagans and have a long history of co-opting traditions and either "Judaizing" or "Christianizing" them.

[IrishJohn]

"Sola Scriptura is patently false..." I disagree, however, how modern evangelicals use it today is different than in previous generations. To Luther, and other reformers sola scriptura meant instruction from scripture alone, as opposed to the Magisterium (sic) In modern evangelicalism it has degenerated into single verse proof texts to establish a point of view. In the reformed tradition, interpretation were based on the aspect of what they called "the whole consul of God" as opposed to a single text. In modern Christianity a single text can be used to promote almost anything.

Which quickly became nothing more than substituting a new form of magisterium for that of the Catholic Church's. It is impossible for any faith group to follow strictly the Bible alone without developing such a magisterial mechanism of their own. The very method of interpreting the Bible they employ flows from such.

[IrishJohn]

This is a very true statement. A lot of Christians I talk to do not believe that the two biggest holidays within the Christian Religion (Christmas and Easter) were pagan holidays that were adopted by the early Christian church in order to make it easier for people to convert...

"Come over to our religion.....we celebrate the same holidays!"

That stems from a poor understanding of history. The Bible itself shows examples of pagan influence that was "converted" to better uses. Just look up the first chapter of the Gospel of John on the Logos and refer to ancient Greek philosophy.

The issue I have is when people's beliefs require them to try to make me believe as they do, or kill me for not converting (which is big in Islam...and was a big thing in Catholicism in the early days).

Agreed. Although Catholics weren't alone in this among Christians. Many Protestant groups have a poor record as well, which is ironic because part of the reason for the Reformation (besides theological disputes) was due to the shenanigans of the hierarchy in the Catholic Church.

[IrishJohn]

I'm the same way. I believe in the complete separation of church and state as some of our forefathers did, but many people today don't want to admit.

I agree with this completely. I strongly support the First Amendment rights of these groups to practice their faith traditions without undo government interference (hence for example why I support the Catholic Church's lawsuit over contraception requirements even though I disagree with their teaching on the subject), yet we've seen how badly things can go when they delve too much into the civil sphere of things.

[IrishJohn]

These aren't the kind of rule changes I'm talking about. I'm talking about changes that are strictly biblical and have nothing to do with the laws of governments i.e. unbaptized infants being stuck in limbo and priests not being allowed to marry. I didn't say rule changes should be avoided; I did imply that they are necessary when people blatantly misinterpret the Bible in the first place.

With regards to Limbo, this is a good example of how theological speculation can lead one down a well-intentioned but very wrong path. It's understandable how it developed, although technically was never a dogma of the Catholic Church. As for clerical celibacy, it isn't dogma and can be changed at any time. It developed for good reasons in the Latin Church, but not in the Eastern Churches. Personally I think it was good for the period in history it developed in but ha now outlived its usefulness, and indeed can be said to be detrimental. Let me clarify by saying that I'm not opposed to priests and ministers being celibate, a small percentage of folks are indeed called to this, but having a rule that ALL of them should be so regardless of whether they truly have such a vocation or not.

[publius2k4]

Here's a great religious speech from President John F. Kennedy, who was Catholic.

[video=youtube;ZmQCwXM9X6o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmQCwXM9X6o[/video]