Posted on 12/10/2012 9:27:44 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
...gambling, rock music, etc, etc?
Now, this thread isn't about debating what is sin and what isn't or what constitutes sin or doesn't. Please don't hijack this thread over the issues that I listed. Thank you.
This thread is about our changing culture - and let's face it, more and more denominations/churches are ever so slowly moving towards tolerance and/or acceptance of homosexual marriage. The rest in the list (following gay marriage) that I included in the thread were put there to show that if you look back far enough at various denomination's church bylaws some churches were once against this or that - but no longer are. Just like they once were adamantly against homosexuality/homosexual marriage, but are slowly drifting away from that.
Which makes me wonder and posit the following question:
Those (the various ministers who were the crafters of church bylaws and voted on them) believed that they were following God's will in the crafting of their church/denomination bylaws. And they believed that they had it right (or scripturally correct) be it in the early 1800's, early 1850's, late 1800's, early 1900's mid 1900's, etc.
So, if a church/denomination "took a stand" against drinking and smoking or gambling, etc, etc in the 1800's in its bylaws but now has since changed the bylaws on these, did those back in the 1800's really hear from God when they crafted those bylaws? If not, then how can those today who change the church bylaws on these things be certain that they aren't making a mistake by changing the church/denomination's bylaws as they are just as fallible as those who lived back then?
Which leads to churches and the slow change in many denominations taking place over gay marriage....
Where are we as a society headed? What bylaw(s) is/are absolutely correct and never need to be changed?
What might be more insane than a faith actually changing the definition of marriage to include ‘gay marriage’ is to then only conduct same sex marriages if the state gives its permission. “Sorry Steve and Bill, our faith says it’s fine for you to get married, but our state still doesn’t, so no dice, fellas.”
Freegards
Yeah, it’s exactly because the Catholic Church has caved on everything that it and it alone is the object of the Obama attack on religious liberty.
They are the only one’s still standing on the fundamental nature of sexuality, on divorce, on homosexuality: sex is about babies and the lifelong commitment of parents of babies.
But by the time you notice, it will be too late for you.
Lotsa people who call themselves Catholics have indeed caved. They’ll run like rats when it begins to cost something to stand up for traditional sexuality. But the ones who are left, a small fraction of those who claim to be Catholic, the ones who are left will stand firm.
Vatican II changed none of the things you mention. All of them were changed after Vatican II.
Get your facts right first, then complain.
A "church" preoccupied with "getting people thru the doors" at any cost has much bigger problems than the types of music they choose to worship with.
I help lead our early, contemporary service. I actually prefer the traditional service, and would love it if it were at 8:30. I believe it is probably fair to say that the form of worshiop has changed a lot since New Testament times. That is not inherently a bad thing. In fact, “shaking things up” a bit can keep our worship fresh rather than being mechanical. As long as the focus is on the worship of God, and not centering things on ourselves, I am ok with it.
Post number 6 about catholicism to cover up the decline of protestatism in this thread. Odd that.
Really, it’s stunning. If you want a church that isn’t going to capitulate on this issue, you know where to go.
You posted: Churches that change with the times aren’t Churches at all.
***
I disagree with you on that. There are certainly bedrock principles and sacraments (communion, for example) that need to remain, but I suspect that few of us would feel comfortable with worship as practiced, for example, in Ephesus in the first century.
Your libertarian pro-homo boundries for the discussion are stupid. People can say what ever they want to say regarding what you claim is “tolerance” and embracing of sodomy in their churches. Christians can do and say what they want about their own religion and churches. You worry about your own and mind your own freaking business like a good free man would do recogonizing religous freedom in this country.
Yet, it’s the Catholic church that remains firm on this issue while all these protestant churches blow in the wind. Why is this?
My point is that the changes are so disruptive that they now require two different “types” of services. It’s disheartening to see that the “new music” has introduced a level of schism in a church body.
Yet we keep hearing, on FR no less, that the Catholic Church ordains and keeps homosexual priests in the fold. Why is this?
“non-denominational spirit-filled variety that have no ‘confession’, but are only and very insistently Bible concentric”
No Nicene Creed?
“very insistently Bible concentric”,
So what’s stopping them from accepting one sans Romans 1?
“The smaller churches with a congregational structure tend to be more adept at removing heresies by utter collapse”
Nonsense. The congregationalists have no formal structure and they are on this list along with the UMC, Episcopalians, etc.
Other than the language barrier, what, exactly, do you think would make you uncomfortable in such a primitive Christian setting?
Noun: cowardice
1. The trait of lacking courage
Noun: appeasement
1. The act of appeasing (as by acceding to the demands of)
2. Political policy of trying to pacify a hostile country, e.g. by granting concessions
I do see that problem. Our two services, if combined into one, and all attended, would overflow either the sanctuary or the fellowship hall (we have a service in each). Not seeing all of my fellow church members each Sunday is the one thing I dislike about having two services. That is probably unavoidable.
But we have children’s time during each of our services, and that is a different form of worship, but worship nevertheless for the children (and I usually get something from it, too!).
Church organs did not always exist (nor air conditioning, etc.) but we “made room” for them. For me, the essence of worship is time for: acknowledgment that God is God; praise of God; prayer to God giving thanks and interceding for others; giving our tithes and offerings to God; hearing God’s word; receiving a blessing as we head back out into “the world.”
But that’s just me.
Uh, I believe that is what I was doing. I can't very well lecture those who are dead for hundreds of years.
“Yet we keep hearing, on FR no less, that the Catholic Church ordains and keeps homosexual priests in the fold. Why is this?”
1, do you concede that the Catholic church does teach that homosexuality is sinful, unlike the churches mentioned in this article? Yes or no?
Answer this, and I’ll be happy to answer your question.
I am used to stained glass, certain hymns, a consistent place to meet, a certain order of worship, etc. When I see “comfortable” I mean consistent with what we are used to. I did not mean to denigrate first century worship, only to suggest that it was different from what we have today...
There are a host of practicing priests who are all in for the homosexual agenda, and yet they remain priests. This is complicit consent by the RCC.
Jesus drank wine that is true but he was not a blind stinking drunk.
Some churches allow alcohol but do frown on being an alcoholic.
I have to believe some churches ban it all together because they have to deal with alcoholics and it is just easier for the members.
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.