Ecclesiology (Church)

Little Churches within the Church

Read this definition from the Theological Word of the Day and tell me if you think that there are any modern day ecclesiola movements.

Ecclesiola

(Gk, little church”)

This refers to small churches within big churches which met together for spiritual nourishment. The purpose was to revive the spiritual life and commitment of the church through a committed nuclei. The implied idea often became that this was the true church of committed believers meeting within the larger church of nominal Christians. The strong being separated from the weak so that they could, in theory, further strengthen themselves and make the weak strong. The ecclesiola were first formally developed by the pietists and popularized by Philip Jacob Spener. Many Lutherans opposed these meetings believing that the allowance of such was divisive, evidenced separatism, and amounted to spiritual pride. They also feared that such meetings, without qualified clergy, could produce heretical misinterpretations of doctrine.

Read more about this to get a better understanding. Very interesting.

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

The Credo House of Theology is well on the way. Get the latest updates here.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Why Do I (A Calvinist) Go to An Arminian Church?

As many of you know, my family and I moved to Norman, Oklahoma, a year and a half ago primarily due to my mother’s illness. Previously, we lived in Frisco, Texas, where I was a pastor at Stonebriar Community Church for six years. We all loved the church. We loved the people, the commitment to the preaching of God’s word, and the reverence for certain traditions. Oh, and did I mention grace?! That is why I went there in the first place – grace! Rarely (and sadly) do you find a passionate commitment to the word of God and a attitude of grace. This situation gives forth to energy. Call it the power of God, the movement of the Holy Spirit, or whatever you will according to your tradition, but the church was alive. I wanted to be there every day. I miss it greatly.

Grace and truth. The two most important elements in my hierarchy of looking for a church.

Notice, to the surprise of many, I did not list “perfect theology” as a criteria. I did not even say theology that I am always comfortable with (since there is no perfect theology). At Stonebriar, I had it all. Just about everything Chuck taught, I agreed with. If not, I loved the man so much that I would bend myself to agree with him! (At least for that Sunday.) Of course, Chuck is a pastor more than a professional theologian. But he was committed to sound theology and he is a Calvinist! (a four pointer at least). Oh the depths and riches of reformed preaching! The power, the hope, the pride that can be taken when God’s sovereignty is preached in such a way.

However, today I do not go to a Calvinistic church. In fact, I am at an Arminian church. In fact (again), I am a regular teacher at a church that is both Arminian and Egalitarian. In fact (last time), last week I had to call the pastor that I am under to ask if it was okay for me to teach on “Women in the Church,” a topic in a current series I am on. This church is called Crossings Community Church and it is part of the Church of God, Anderson (not the charismatic Church of God you may be thinking of).

Let me briefly define a few terms before we move on (I will get in trouble if I don’t. If you already know these “big” words, move on. If not, learn them! – its not that hard):

Calvinist: One who believes in the doctrines of grace most traditionally defined by the TULIP acronym. The most controversial of the doctrines are Unconditional Election: the belief that God elects some individuals to salvation and not other based upon his sovereign will; Limited Atonement: the belief that Christ’s death only paid for the sins of the elect; Irresistible Grace: the belief that when God’s saving grace is presented to the elect, it is always effective (i.e. they will not ever reject it); and Perseverance of the Saints: the belief that those who are saved (the elect) will persevere and cannot “lose” their salvation.

Arminian: One who denies all of the Calvinistic doctrines of grace except the first, Total Depravity. The Arminian will opt for a belief in “Conditional” election: the belief that God’s predestination is based on the foreseen faith of the individual; “Resistible” grace: the belief that God’s saving grace can be rejected by anyone; “Unlimited” atonement: the belief that Christ’s death paid for the sins of every individual; and the belief that a truly saved person and fall from or “lose” their salvation.

Complementarianism: Belief in essential equality, but functional hierarchy in the sexes. This hierarchy is by God’s design and is not due to the fall. Man is to be the leader in the church and home. Women are not to be in positions of authority over man in the church or home, but are honored due to their role in the same way as men.

Egalitarianism: Belief in the essential and functional equality of the sexes. All role distinctions which imply leadership belonging to the man is due to the fall, not by God’s design. Therefore, women can serve in positions of authority over man in both the church and the home. Role is assigned by individual giftedness, not gender.

So . . . Why does this Calvinistic Complementarian go to an Arminian Egalitarian church? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Why Even Bother Going to Church?

Why go to church? Church stinks. People are either rude, looking down their self-righteous nose at you, or they are nice and in a hurry. I hardly ever have a significant conversation at the church service, it is just “Hi,” or “Good to see you,” or “How’s the family?” or something churchy and pithy like that.

Teaching? Yes, the sermon is great. But can’t I just listen to someone on the radio or download the podcast? Really. What is the difference?

Fellowship? Do not neglect the gathering together of believers, I know. But is that talking about a gathering together at a church building? Why can’t I just hang out with some Christian friends, going to dinner and maybe having a Bible Study at the house. What is special and unique about gathering together with them at a church building? It seems so shallow in those walls.

Taking of the Lord’s table? Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me.” He did not say where we are to do this. Are we limited to a church building? Do elders, pastors, and/or deacons have to distribute the elements? Why? Where do you get that? Why can’t I just do it at my house or at Starbucks?

Giving? Isn’t giving primarily said to support those who labor in teaching and for the poor? I cannot think of any other way it is described in the New Testament. Can’t I just do this on my own, giving to others who are laboring in teaching that I am benefiting from elsewhere?

I am tired of being judged by whether or not I go to church. I heard that the Catholics say that if you miss Mass without a valid excuse you have committed a mortal sin and, if not confessed, no matter how much you love Christ, you are still going to hell. I have been to Protestant churches that seem to believe the same thing (although they would not put it that way). I actually heard someone say that if I don’t go to church I am not a Christian. If that is true, I am not that type of Christian and want nothing to do with it.

I think that the modern idea of going to church is rather legalistic and can cause people to miss the point entirely. I love Christ. I have Christian friends that I love and hang out with. We are the church, but we don’t go to a church. Isn’t this enough? What am I missing?

These statements are not mine, but are typical of many people that I know. In fact, many of my closest friends think this way, they are just scared to admit it.

How would you respond?

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Why I am Proud to be a Protestant

Protestantism is not perfect. No informed Protestant would claim such. Evangelicalism has major problems. This is nothing new. But Protestants have always thought the strengths of Protestantism outweigh the weaknesses. Otherwise, we would not be Protestant!

While I often write about the weaknesses of our system, sometimes complaining about Evangelical shames, I want to do something different here. I am going to give a short list of what I believe to be the major strengths of Protestantism:

1. Celebration of diversity: Protestants can appreciate and celebrate the diversity in the Christian faith unlike any other tradition. Whether it be in worship style or liturgy, house churches or mega churches, Protestant recognize that all people are not alike in their subjective preferences. Protestantism, as a movement, cannot dogmatize the way people should be in areas that are based in non-essential personal preferences. We can recognize that God has created people differently—and this was intentionally. If people have a personality that does not respond well to one style of worship, they are free to celebrate their diversity without feeling the obligation of adapting their style to some traditional norm. Therefore, to be Protestant is to be able to celebrate diversity. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

The Intellectual Crisis of Today’s Church

The central motivating factor in my ministry over the last ten years has been the need for Christians to engage the intellectual side of the faith with more confidence, hope, and joy. I began The Theology Program in 2001 which now is in hundreds of churches and has effected tens of thousands of people. I can barely keep up with the demands of this ministry as its need and potential becomes more evident each and every day.

The intellectual side of Christianity.

With all of this success, one inevitably finds those who continue to place much needed anchors in my mission. While I believe what I am doing has been given to me by God, I also understand that the intellect is not all there is. In fact, while I want to produce more confidence, hope, and joy in the lives of believers, I also want to instill a deep sense of humility. Theology done right should always produce a confident humility. Theology done wrong produces an ironically insecure emotional confidence that is made up of what I call “cut-and-paste” theology and apologetics (”just give me the answers, I don’t care how we get them”). Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Do Catholics Deny Chalcedon in their View of Mass?

I know that the title is provocative, but please understand that I am serious in this question. At this point, I believe that it is very difficult for Roman Catholics who hold to Transubstantiation (is there any other kind of Roman Catholic!) to find harmony with a basic principle in the Definition of Chalcedon. In other words, I believe that Catholics are at odds with some essential elements of orthodox Christology.

Having said that, it may be that I am misunderstanding things (this would not be a first).  So I write this post with the intention of informing my audience of a very intriguing issue, giving them a better look at Chalcedonian Christology, and giving an opportunity to Catholics to give an answer to this issue (if there are any that happen by—and there usually are).

I am going to explain the issue and I want all of you to hang with me through some deep waters. I will try to navigate you to a point where you understand why I believe (tentatively) that Catholics deny Chalcedon because of their view of Mass.

Component #1:

Orthodoxy has historically claimed that Christ is fully God and fully man. This is not an arbitrary pronouncement or belief, but is one that is central to an understanding of the Gospel.

Short history lesson. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

In Defense of Seeker Churches

A guest post by Daniel Eaton at Theologica. Being from Dallas Seminary, we were breed to loath seeker churches. :) Yet I do have my thoughts as well that I will follow this up with. I look forward to your interaction.

I think there is a growing schism in the American church. The schism isn’t over theology, but methodology. A growing number of “seeker friendly” churches are on one side, and a firmly entrenched group of traditional churches are on the other. The increasing shrillness about the “seeker friendly” format somehow reminds me of church splits over what kind of music or musical instruments in the church. I think a lot of it comes down to a view that if it worked for my Grandad’s generation, then three hymns, a choir number, a sermon about the dangers in our society, and 27-stanzas of Just As I Am should be sufficient today. It’s the old “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality.

But the problem is that it *is* broke. That format no longer appeals to the masses. That method is becoming harder and harder to use in order to get the message out. The sad truth is that the average tattooed or pierced unsaved person does not feel welcome or accepted if they attend the traditional church. It is an atmosphere of condemnation of those that don’t dress or look like everyone else there. This unsaved Seeker isn’t going to stick around. Instead, he is going to leave with a sense that the Christian church is full of a bunch of condemning hypocrites. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Should We Be able to Interupt a Sermon?

In a previous post I described the five ways Christians can evidence emerging characteristics. One of them was to “emerge ecclesiologically.” This is the way I described it:

This characterizes an attempt or desire to return to some traditional elements of the Christian faith that draw upon a more experience based worship. Many times this will be evidenced by a less formal structure of gatherings or formal church time, allowing freedom of expression without the traditional restraints of more program oriented gatherings.

Examples:

  • Less tendency to have a traditional (post-reformation) church program structure
  • Movement toward house churches
  • Disdain for mega-churches
  • Lord’s supper/Eucharist practiced every week
  • Artwork as expressions of faith
  • Candles and incense
  • Traditional prayers and creeds
  • Prayer walks

Here is a quote that I found interested out of Stories of Emergence. In speaking about today’s typical church service, the author says:

“Today’s modern service is orchestrated so nothing disturbing, uncomfortable, controversial, or shocking occurs. The music is edited to eliminate mediocre musicians or off-key singer. Solo numbers are assigned to the best. Prayer requests are screened or relegated to the bulletin where they can be carefully worded. Testimonies are screened to guarantee they won’t make anyone uncomfortable or go on for too long. They sermon is inviolate. No interruptions are allowed, questions can’t be asked, assumptions can’t be challenged, disagreements can’t be voiced.” (Stories of Emergence, p. 17) Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

The Entertainment Driven Church

I recently decided to follow my own oft given advice and venture out to other churches just to see what the cultural landscape looks like and to stretch myself a bit.

First, I went to an evangelical high Anglican church. I was wanting to see something a little more traditional. Plus, according to the latest news about red wine and health, I needed a shot of the real thing. It was a rewarding experience. It was also interesting to be at a church that was not to concerned about whether I was there or not. There were no greeters at the door, no one really noticed when I came in, and they did not say anything to me as I left. This is not a criticism, but just an observation. They did not let anything take them away from their reverential service in which things were done in a particular order. Because of this, it was not a primary purpose to fill the pews with guests. If a guest came in, great. They could stay and worship, but they were not going to do back flips and moonwalk for anyone but Christ.

Next, I went to a church that was just the opposite. It was a popular non-denominational Evangelical associated church. It was much more alluring in its style, having a much more amplified voice with regards to recognizing newcomers. From the moment we got in the parking lot, there were signs welcoming us along with parking lot attendants waving. These guys were so enthusiastic you would think that they had been trained at Disney World. The signs pointed to valet parking for first time guests. I would have taken them up on the offer, but pride always rules (oh . . . and then there is that awkward feeling that you are supposed to give them some money even when they say they don’t take it). We were greeted by another enthusiastic character, a very nice young man, who led us around. When we told him we were first time visitors, he said “Oh, VIPs?” We then were introduced everywhere we went under this title “VIPs” (Very Important Persons). When others would hear that we were VIPs, they would have a look of excitement mixed with anxiousness. The anxiousness seemed to come from an underlying understanding that their church was focused on bringing in newcomers. Then . . . they led us to the children’s area. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Will the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?

Warning, long post ahead:

Download as PDF

How does one define the emerging church? This is not an easy question to answer. Are you emerging? Maybe you are and you just don’t know it. It is very difficult to define exactly what it means to “emerge.” Sometimes its characteristics sound a lot like what “Evangelical” used to mean. Other times it sounds just like “Liberal.” Often it is hard to distinguish emerging from neo-orthodox or even Eastern Orthodox. Many would just say that emergers are Christian Democrats!

If you compare yourself to a personality to determine whether you are emerging, it is no better. To whom do you choose to compare yourself? Brian McLaren? Doug Pagitt? Dan Kimball? Mark Driscoll?

1. If you go with Brian McLaren, then you may view “emerging” as somewhat of a political revolution.

2. If you go with Doug Pagitt, then you may see emerging” as the hope of God’s redemption through a sort of quasi-universalism.

3. If you go with Dan Kimball, then you see “emerging” as a mission to win the lost with the essential message of the Gospel through kindness and understanding (sounds a bit like evangelicalism).

4. If you go with Mark Driscoll, then you may find it hard to distinguish “emerging” from missional minded reformed evangelicalism.

Maybe its not that simple, but my point is that most of these fellows don’t seem like bed-fellows. In other words, it is hard to find the least common denominator with regards to their emerging distinction. They all call themselves emergers, but I don’t think that Driscoll would be too fond of being identified with Pagitt or McLaren. Kimball and Driscoll maybe, Pagitt and McLaren maybe, but not all of them together. It is hard to find the connection. If all of these guys are emerging, then what does emerging mean? Would the real emerger please stand up? Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Drive Thru Church – One of the funniest videos I have ever seen!

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

The Entertainment Driven Church

I recently decided to follow my own oft given advice and venture out to other churches just to see what the cultural landscape looks like and to stretch myself a bit.

First, I went to an evangelical high Anglican church. I was wanting to see something a little more traditional. Plus, according to the latest news about red wine and health, I needed a shot of the real thing. It was a rewarding experience. It was also interesting to be at a church that was not to concerned about whether I was there or not. There were no greeters at the door, no one really noticed when I came in, and they did not say anything to me as I left. This is not a criticism, but just an observation. They did not let anything take them away from their reverential service in which things were done in a particular order. Because of this, it was not a primary purpose to fill the pews with guests. If a guest came in, great. They could stay and worship, but they were not going to do back flips and moonwalk for anyone but Christ.

Next, I went to a church that was just the opposite. It was a popular non-denominational Evangelical associated church. It was much more alluring in its style, having a much more amplified voice with regards to recognizing newcomers. From the moment we got in the parking lot, there were signs welcoming us along with parking lot attendants waving. These guys were so enthusiastic you would think that they had been trained at Disney World. The signs pointed to valet parking for first time guests. I would have taken them up on the offer, but pride always rules (oh . . . and then there is that awkward feeling that you are supposed to give them some money even when they say they don’t take it). We were greeted by another enthusiastic character, a very nice young man, who led us around. When we told him we were first time visitors, he said “Oh, VIPs?” We then were introduced everywhere we went under this title “VIPs” (Very Important Persons). When others would hear that we were VIPs, they would have a look of excitement mixed with anxiousness. The anxiousness seemed to come from an underlying understanding that their church was focused on bringing in newcomers. Then . . . they led us to the children’s area.

Here most of the kids were playing video games along a long wall which had the game consoles built into the wall. The room itself was huge. It must have been designed by the same person who designs Chuck-E-Cheese. Seriously! (Although this is not as cool as the church we went to a few months ago where you had to climb a jungle gym two stories high and then slide through the wall in the foyer into the children’s area!)

There was an elf that met the children at the door. Also in this room was a store that had Barbies, action figures, Brats Dolls, and all of the most popular items that you would find in a Toy-R-Us catalog the day after Thanksgiving. In order for kids to get the merchandise, they had to say a memory verse and earn store credits. The first thing my kids said to me when I went to pick them up was “Daddy, can we start going to this church?” Can you blame them? For kids, this was a dream church.

Well, I really try to keep an open mind about these things knowing that one persons church is not another’s. But I had yet to go to the main service. As we walked in, I had to dodge the camera and squint to see the stage. It was dark and there was production smoke everywhere. We sat down and listened to an incredible performance by the worship team who sang many songs I was very familiar with. They were Christ centered and I sang along. I even put my hands up in the air when the worship leader instructed us to (hey, when in Rome). My wife looked at me with the “I cannot believe that you are really doing that” smile/laugh. No really, she had the I-am-hiding-my-face-because-my-husband-is-in-one-of-those-weird-aggressive-moods-and-he-is-going-to-make-a-fool-of-me look. In reality, the worship was very well done. It could have been an opening act to a U2 concert.

After the worship, then came the announcements. That is where things really got interesting. Instead of the normal Baptist list of things giving from a random person from the pulpit, the lights went dark and there was silence. On the screens up above there were prerecorded announcement videos. These were not just your hey-I-got-a-new-digital-camera-and-I-am-now-a-professional-editor videos. No, these could have been aired during the Super Bowl. Yes, they were that good. And funny! They went through four separate announcements. The first was to welcome special guests. Then one for the men’s ministry, followed by one for the women’s ministry and one for a marriage seminar that was coming up. All the videos had a different theme and was a top rate production. They were funny enough to be on Saturday Night Live (ok, that is an exaggeration, but they were funny).

I could not believe how much time and energy must have gone into making these videos. And they do it each week! (I can’t even get one short promotional video for RMM—blast it!).

Then comes the sermon. The message itself was good and helpful, but better suited for a Zig Ziggler seminar on self-motivation. He used Mark 7:33 to teach that Christ wants to deal with us each individually and wants our words to be for edification because what we think, we are.

How did he get this you ask? Well, let me show you.

Mark 7:33 Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva.

“Jesus took him aside”=Jesus wants to deal with us each individually.

“Jesus spit”=Jesus had to form the saliva in his mouth before He spit, therefore, we are to let Him form our words.

“[He] put His fingers into his ears…He touched his tongue…and his ears were opened and his speech impediment was removed” (v. 35)=sometimes we don’t hear people rightly because we already have the wrong words in our mouth. Therefore, we have to have the right words in our mouth.

Well, at least the principles are true generally, even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the text. God does want us to listen to others and he does want us to think about what we say. As well, I believe that there is an individualistic way in which God wants to relate to us.

Once the service was over, I went and drug my kids out of the amusement park (literally) and then began to reflect.

A few points of observation (the good, the bad, and the ugly):

The Good

I really think that these people have the best of intentions.
They did represent excellence in arts and entertainment and thereby bring glory to God.
They were very outreach oriented.
They had Starbucks.
The Bad

The focus on entertaining newcomers caused them to lose focus on truth.
The focus on entertainment took resources away from the training of the pastors to accurately handle the word of God–the very foundation of truth from where the idea of Church comes.
The focus on entertainment smacked of irreverence. I am not one of the high church mentality, but doesn’t the purpose of worship and study of God’s word call for seriousness at some point? There was never a time when I felt that these people knew what it meant to fear the Lord.
I want to make something really clear. I don’t have anything against amusement, entertainment, or fun. I don’t even mind it in church to some degree (I wish that some preachers would just try to entertain A LITTLE). If they had just called this an event rather than church, I would have been more at ease. Call it a Christian concert, carnival, parade, entertainment production, or whatever, but please don’t call it “church.”

The Ugly

The sad fact is that there was no educational program for people to grow deep in the faith. There were plenty of opportunities for service, outreach to the community, and fellowship, but nothing that helped these people understand the why of what they are doing. I don’t necessarily expect these type of churches to do church the exact way that I would tell them, but at least have as one of the involvement suggestions a program of theological discipleship or doctrine to encourage people to know the God they are serving.

These people had no connection to the past whatsoever. They would have no idea about the history of the church outside of the history of their local gathering. What are they connected to? What makes them think that they are qualified to bring in all these visitors? Don’t they feel the least bit of a need to have a heritage? Are they not accountable to anyone past or present?

The biggest fear that I have is that this is representative of so many well meaning people who start churches. I imagine the person who started this particular church grew up in a very boring church and set it as his primary goal to someday have a church that was fun. That is nice, but, more often than not, totally destructive. The pews are filled with people who are weak and totally unestablished in the faith. Most really don’t know what the Christian message is outside of “Jesus loves you and wants you to have a wonderful life.” Many claim Jesus, serve Him, and lift up their hands in praise, but what happens when someone or something challenges their faith? Where are they going to turn? To the shallowness of the entertaining commercials or out of context self-help lessons? Where will they go when the foundations are destroyed?

It is this type of context that gives unfortunate illustrations to books like Ruth Tucker’s Walking Away From the Faith. “I was a Christian who used to go to church every week, served on the welcoming team for years, lifted my hands in worship, went to other countries and built churches, but I came to find out that it was all false.” Really? What I want to know is did you ever find out that it was really true in the first place.

I could go on but this experience has confirmed to me the desperate shape that the modern church—the Evangelical church—is in and the need that we have for renewal. When things get tough (and they will), who will people turn to? Where will people go when the entrainment, laughter, and fun serve no purpose?

May God grant us a mindset to give people their true needs, not their felt needs.

Truth first, mission second, fellowship third, and if there is any room, throw in some entertainment.

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Theology Unplugged: “Marks of a False Church” (What is the “True” Church #6)

What is the “True” church? #5

What is the definition of a true church? Here we will continue our discussion of what a legitimate church.

Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Theology Unplugged: “Marks of a False Church” (What is the “True” Church #5)

What is the “True” church? #5

What is the definition of a true church? Here we will continue our discussion of what a legitimate church. We will also ask Is the Catholic Church a cult? In particular this time we will talk about the first two marks of a false church:

1. Radical Exclusivism

This is where the question Is the Catholic Church a cult? comes in. Radical Exclusivism is evidenced by those churches who claim that it is only in their denomination or tradition that salvation can be found. They have all the right answers, right practices, and right ordinances/sacraments. Once this is claimed then the institution itself becomes the determining factor of salvation. Ironically, as we argue in the broadcast, this is a mark of a false church.

2. Radical Inclusivism

Radical Inclusivism is just the opposite of Radical Exclusivism. Here you will find a “no holds barred” approach to the church. People can be a part of this type of church irregardless of their confession or practice. It is the church of the open door where toleration is the primary virtue. This, again, is a mark of a false church as we argue.

Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #4

What is the “True” church? #4

What are the essential components that are necessary for a local church to be a local church? Do you have to have a sermon? Sunday School? a aulpit? A building? A cross? Join us as we continue to discuss the theology of a local church.

Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Can Doctrine Develop? An Important Issue that Divides Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics

How can Protestants justify their belief in sola fide (salvation by faith alone) when it does not seem to be existent prior to the sixteenth century? How do Catholics explain their belief in the Assumption of Mary when it was not dogmatized until the twentieth century? How do Orthodox justify their under-developed and often unbiblical beliefs concerning the atonement? 

During the recording of Theology Unplugged today, Greg Cromartie (the ”muddying the water guy”) asked me a very difficult question that I have yet to make any definitive decision about. This should not surprise many of you knowing that there are many issues which I have yet to decide upon and many about which I assume that I, out of necessity, must be comfortable concerning my indecision until Christ comes. But the question touched on something that I feel is very important. Therefore, my indecision is an uncomfortable one. The issue has to do with the “doctrine of” the development of doctrine. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #3

What is the “True” church? #3

What is the definition of a true church? Here we will continue our discussion of what a legitimate church. Are we supposed to “start” a church in order for a church to “true” or does church simply happen? In other words we pose the question of whether a local church is purely an intentional endeavor. With the obscurities concerning the “how to” of a local church in the New Testament, many have dogmatized a certain way to do church failing to recognize that it is the principles that ultimately matter, not so much the particular way which we implement those principles.

Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Has God Preserved the Scriptures? . . . (Part 1)


Many Christians believe in what they would call “the doctrine of preservation.” What they mean by this is that God has preserved the scriptures. More sophisticated expressions would argue that God has preserved the scriptures in the original languages, down to the very words. This is where the problem begins.

When we look at the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament), we soon discover that there are a few places in which, at least at this time in history, God has not preserved the scriptures. For example, in some places all the extant Hebrew manuscripts (as well as versions) are so corrupt that scholars have been forced to emend the text on the basis of mere conjecture. That is, there is no manuscript in any language that has the true, original reading. Among the passages that make the list are Deut 32.8, 1 Sam 13.1, 1 Sam 14.47, Isa 21.8, Isa 53.11, and Jer 2.21. Besides these are passages that up until fairly recently were corrupt in all the manuscripts. For example, Eugene Ulrich, Septuagint scholar extraordinaire, noted that Josephus preserved “at least four genuine Samuel readings which were preserved by no other witness until 4QSama was recovered” (Samuel and Josephus, 2). Ernst Würthwein, in his Text of the Old Testament, 142, noted that 1QIsaa confirmed conjectures that scholars had come up with at Isa 40.6 and 40.17. There are several other OT texts that could be added to the list. The point is that even in those places in which the Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed the conjectures of scholars with hard data, the fact is that the Bible in its entirety—that is, in all of its very words—has not been available to God’s people for all these centuries. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Theology Unplugged: What is the “True” Church #2

What is the “True” church? #2
During this program we attempt to further distinguish between the Protestant understanding of apostolic succession and that of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. In essence, Evangelical Protestants who find their roots in the Reformation define apostolic succession as a succession of teaching not necessarily succession in person. We also discuss theological accountability within the Protestant church. Oh boy . . . this is fun indeed.

Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Should the Church Seek for Miracles Signs?

Hi Michael,

I’ve got a very devote Eastern Orthodox friend (he left evangelicalism and converted a few years ago…he is 24…) he goes on and on about all these fantastic miracles…about saints whose bodies do not decay and even omit “fragrance”…um…something about fire that won’t burn a bishops beard or something…I don’t know…sounds legendary…

What should we make of them? Deny them?

____________________________________

Dear Pastor,

I don’t know. It sounds like folk theology to me as well. As I said in a previous blog, this type of mindset is common no matter where you are. In other words, it is not an East or West thing, but a characteristic of the human conditions. People flock to where the “miracles” “signs” are. While I understand this mentality (since miracles and signs can and often do evidence the presence of God), it is hard to determine what the meaning of such miracles are. Continue Reading »

Send post as PDF to PDF | PDF Creator | PDF Converter

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Share this Post[?]
        

Next Page »