Traditional Christianity: Discerning the Real Faith from False Teachings

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


The website in your sig says differently, Lincoln. So's your book.

Here is a direct quote from my book (chapt. 11):

..."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."[Gen:1;1] It seems to me that there are a number of creationists who seem to think that their own particular interpretation of scripture is the measure of all reality. Nevertheless the first verse of the Bible, without resorting to endless speculation and tossing out Occam’s razor again, appears to be established reality. There is no time line from this event anywhere in scripture that requires a so called young earth or young universe. Now, without claiming that my particular interpretation is correct in exclusion of the others we should discuss a few known facts that relate to time, space and the speed of light. It may very well be true that the supposition of a younger universe is the correct interpretation. Anyway, let’s look at some facts....

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, I was just wondering why he was connecting it to the LDS Church - the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, etc.

Not sure.

It's a decent case against the Baha'i.

[Elok]

Actually, there are non-deist religions, Ben; Buddhists and Taoists come to mind. They believe only in a general ideal, not a specific being with a personality and precise will. Whether this is just an unusually vague "God" of sorts is certainly debatable, IMO, but at least there are many religions that swear allegiance to no God as such.

As to the refusal-to-change charge, why the devil should any religion in the Judeo-Christian tradition change? We're talking about a system based on divine revelation. If you could change the rules to suit what's popular at the moment, those rules would be instantly rendered illegitimate. Their entire source of authority would be compromised.

Assuming, of course, that we're talking about *moral* beliefs. Those have no cause to change. The bible was pretty obviously not written as a science textbook and I refuse to defend those who think it was. If God was aiming for strict scientific accuracy in His account, He probably would have used a more precise unit of measurement than "cubits."

[Verto]

As to the refusal-to-change charge, why the devil should any religion in the Judeo-Christian tradition change? We're talking about a system based on divine revelation. If you could change the rules to suit what's popular at the moment, those rules would be instantly rendered illegitimate. Their entire source of authority would be compromised.

Most Churches have done this, though.

[Elok]

Which is why I think most of 'em are wrong. If it was formerly wrong to, say, sniff daffodils on a Saturday (using a nonsense example to avoid a threadjack), and a church says it is now good to sniff daffodils any day of the week, that means either:

A. Church was wrong before-so why's it right now?
B. God changed His mind-when did He tell them?
C. Changing circumstances have altered what is or is not permissible-a morally dangerous argument, and never explained anyway.

If we find flip-flopping on issues abhorrent in politicians, that kind of behavior should be even more revolting in an eternal church.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Elok
Which is why I think most of 'em are wrong. If it was formerly wrong to, say, sniff daffodils on a Saturday (using a nonsense example to avoid a threadjack), and a church says it is now good to sniff daffodils any day of the week, that means either:

A. Church was wrong before-so why's it right now?
B. God changed His mind-when did He tell them?
C. Changing circumstances have altered what is or is not permissible-a morally dangerous argument, and never explained anyway.

If we find flip-flopping on issues abhorrent in politicians, that kind of behavior should be even more revolting in an eternal church.

I am very much in agreement with you.

[Japher]

I like daffodils... I like pretty much most bulb plants, especially daffodils and tulips. If that really were a religious requirement I would definitly be a heathen.

[Ben Kenobi]

Elok:

Actually, there are non-deist religions, Ben; Buddhists and Taoists come to mind. They believe only in a general ideal, not a specific being with a personality and precise will. Whether this is just an unusually vague "God" of sorts is certainly debatable, IMO, but at least there are many religions that swear allegiance to no God as such.

Very true. I just wondered whether he was thinking along those lines.

As to the refusal-to-change charge, why the devil should any religion in the Judeo-Christian tradition change? We're talking about a system based on divine revelation. If you could change the rules to suit what's popular at the moment, those rules would be instantly rendered illegitimate. Their entire source of authority would be compromised.

Very true. However, there are some parts of the church, and their teachings that can change without compromising an essential part of the faith. Not all rules have the same force behind them, one of them would be the celibacy of the clergy, types of music at the worship service, or even the liturgy.

These all play a big role in the church, yet the rules around them are flexible in the sense that they can and do change to fit the congregation.

I go to a very liberal mennonite church (if you can believe that), where everyone dresses nicely, though not in the traditional dress found in many other mennonite churches. This stems from the fact that how are you going to get folks from Malaysia to drop their saris?

This is what I meant by the change that all churches need to go through, that some people find very painful.

[Ben Kenobi]

Which is why I think most of 'em are wrong. If it was formerly wrong to, say, sniff daffodils on a Saturday (using a nonsense example to avoid a threadjack), and a church says it is now good to sniff daffodils any day of the week, that means either:

A. Church was wrong before-so why's it right now?
B. God changed His mind-when did He tell them?
C. Changing circumstances have altered what is or is not permissible-a morally dangerous argument, and never explained anyway.

First of all, if you are a Christian, than you have to believe that B has happened before. After all, do we not say that we are no longer bound by the old law, and that the new has fulfilled the old?

Many of the requirements, in the ritual of religious practice changed with the enduring sacrifice of Christ.

Secondly, A has happened as well. The church can get things wrong, or can drift into error over time. The whole Reformation occurred to combat many of the excesses of the clergy at the time. So, the church could indeed be wrong, and change would be necessary to restore the church.

Thirdly, C can happen as well, in that God allows us certain freedoms in our worship, and many of the practices of the church occur for very specific conditions that are limited in their temporal scope. When the conditions change, then these practices don't make much sense.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
As to the refusal-to-change charge, why the devil should any religion in the Judeo-Christian tradition change? We're talking about a system based on divine revelation.

*cough* The Old Testament holds markedly different doctrines from the New Testament *cough*

[Elok]

Ben (and UR, kinda):

The differences between the new and old testaments exist in light of the Resurrection. In that case, the circumstances of the world itself have changed. That would be a cross between B and C. Galations 1:6-9 says there are no more revelations to be made, so by Christian standards at least choice B is done for.

When the church "gets things wrong," the change made is in correction of the error, getting things back on track without actual change. E.g. the iconoclast heresy in my own Orthodoxy--which was corrected in part by fingers pointing to the cherubim decorating the Ark of the Covenant in the OT by command of God himself, a clearly "iconographic" tradition.

There's more than sufficient evidence to indicate that the Reformation introduced a style of worship even more radically different than the RCC's from early Christian communities'. I read a book called "Orthodox Worship: a living continuity with the synagogue, the temple, and the early Church," as research for a scholarship contest recently. While obviously it's Orthodox propaganda, and you probably won't be able to find a copy, it makes an excellent case for the propriety of liturgical worship. Check it out. Also, many of the doctrinal changes of the Reformation had nothing to do with correcting corruption. Didn't Luther chuck out the entire book of James because he didn't like the emphasis on Works?

For your third point, Ben, could you give a concrete example? I distinguish between changes in doctrine and changes in custom-the addition of prayers for travellers by air to the Liturgy, for example, is an example of reasonable response to changing times. The thing is, sometimes custom can reinforce doctrine, like the way the honorific "Theotokos" ("god-bearer") for the Virgin Mary suppressed the Arian heresy.