Posted on 12/31/2006 8:41:18 AM PST by Gamecock
If you happen to think that being saved by Grace through Faith is a new religion, then yes, i am.
When somebody has a perfectly orthodox theology with no inconsistencies, i will listen to that person on the subject. In the interim, i have to depend on God to save me in spite of my own inconsistencies and heretical views (whatever they may be).
I'm sorry that you have had such an experience with your church. There is only one book to follow, the Bible. All the rest of the books written by pastors, flim flam men, etc aren't what to follow. This I agree with you.
Tithing doesn't have to be to a church you are attending. So you can send your tithe to a church you see that follows the Bible, whether or not you attend that church.
The thrust of my post was that the house of God isn't necessarily for the saved to hear the scripture preached.
It is much more important for the unsaved to hear the scripture preached.
I was thinking of this just the other day. I don't believe it will always be "necessary" for us to be under seige because one day every knee will bow to Christ. But at this moment in time, God has declared that His word will be challenged, just like He has declared that we are to rebuke error and affirm His truth in all things.
And the reason for this challenge, like everything else, is for His glory. It certainly helps the blood pressure to know that...
"For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." -- 1 Corinthians 11:19
Those "Word Faith Movement" are just a repackaged derivative of the Latter Rain Movement from the mid 20th Century. The Kansas City Prophets, etc. and all trace back to the end of the 19th century to a group of kooks.
Then please correct me in terms I can understand.
I take instruction well and will not turn down constructive criticism.
My post was meant to convey that having a nonbeliver hear the word of God preached is more important than having a believer hear the word of God preached.
Where is my misunderstanding?
There won't be any heretics, but there may be some FORMER heretics in Heaven. I'll go along with that idea.
IMO it's at its core (a very shallow "core" at that), a "gospel of mammon."
The church serves both as a worship place for those already saved, and a sanctuary for those who need salvation. It is for all, not just the unsaved. Where would the unsaved learn anything, unless mature Christians were there to assist?
Fair enough.
Then please correct me in terms I can understand.
I take instruction well and will not turn down constructive criticism.
Without strangling you in reams of verses, I'll simply point out that "square one" -- the foundation upon which the "The house of God is for those who haven't found God yet" doctrine fails -- is that "The Church" IS -- by definition -- the believers, i.e., "The Body of Christ."
No one can be "grafted into the body", as it were, if he is in a state of unbelief, unsaved, whatever terminology you like.
What it boils down to is that the "new gospel" is one of "fellowhip with unbelievers", which is heresy, period, full stop, end of discussion.
It's great for the budget, though -- and for purposes of proving "correctness via size." Sheer marketing genius -- and we have the likes of Schumpeter and Drucker to thank for it (for which Warren makes no apologies.)
I agree. I didn't mean for my post to be taken literally, as in the saved didn't belong in the house of God. More that the house of God is ALSO for the unsaved.
Or to put it on other terms -- more descriptive, while running the risk that they might be MISinterpreted -- when you mix dirty water and clean water, you end up with dirty water.
(And if that's too coarse for anyone, then let's go straight to the source, i.e., "a little leaven leavens the lump.")
It's one thing to "invite unbelievers to church" -- it's something entirely -- entirely different -- to embrace them as integral members of the fellowship. And that, from what I can ascertain, is part of what's going on.
Again, it makes great marketing-sense -- but it ain't "church".
I agree. I am describing (bad word but I can't come up with another term off the top of my head) the house of God, a church, as a physical building.
In that sense the church is where one typically comes to hear the word of God, the scripture, from a pastor, or priest, or evangelist.
If the unbeliever is not welcomed into the physical structure, where else are they likely to hear the word of God?
Who needs the word of God more, the saved or the unsaved?
BOTH!
I agree completely with that.
To have a say in what goes on in the church you must be a member of that church. Not just go there, not just give money, you must be saved by grace, confess your sins, and be accepted by the church body.
Even if you have the first two, if you don't have the third you're not a member of that church.
You may be a member of THE church, the body of Christ, but you're not a member of THAT church.
If you're not saved by Christ, you're not a member of a church.
When WE speak of it in terms of inviting people to church to hear the gospel, it appears that THEY are using unbelievers to "pad" the membership -- accepting the idea of unbelieving "members of the Body of Christ", which is by definition heretical, when you get right down to it.
The alarms should go off when you hear of unbelievers being "fellowshipped" as if they were believers. It's one thing to evangelize an unbeliever -- it's something entirely different to fellowship with a believer.
The terminology really isn't that loose, that the two conditions can be interchanged. This is basic foundational stuff.
This looks like it could be a great thread on its own. I'm not trying to say the discussion shouldn't continue here, I just think something like this should have biblical support, lots of comments and input, and maybe a new thread might be best.
Here's the scary part -- what happens if you turn that concept on its head, and bring in members to "that" church, who are NOT members of "the" church?
What's the term for that?
Maybe need isn't the right word.
The believer has already heard the word of God. The believer has already attained their salvation.
The unbeliever may, or may not, have heard the word of God. The unbeliever has not attained their salvation.
I may be thirsty. Another may be dying of thirst. Which needs water?
Frankly, I don't know that it really merits much discussion, beyond "is it or is it not going on?"
I mean, if it comes down to a suggestion that it IS an acceptable practice, well, whoa...
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.