Greatest Sect of Christianity

[Elok]

Convert's zeal is a complex phenomenon, but at its most basic level, it's just a matter of novelty. If your religion is new to you, you embrace it with greater passion than if you grew up with it and are used to it. This isn't always a bad thing; a lot of converts take the rules about piety much more seriously than we lax "cradle" believers do. They add new life to the church. The downside, of course, is that they sometimes overstep bounds in their eagerness to advance the faith.

[Kidlicious]

Elok, it's partly because I believe in reformation (with a lowercase r) and I don't know if that aplies to the OC, because I might not know enough about it. But really we have very different ideas about what church means. For me it's not even about reforming the church. It's about not conforming to it, but following God's word.

[Elok]

Well, that bucks the traditional understanding of the relationship between the faithful and the church, but I don't think we need to get into that. Even if we do, I'm weak on church history and couldn't do the argument justice. I dislike sola scriptura partly from ingrained prejudice but mostly out of distaste for the chaos it engenders.

[Elok]

Revival and awakening is often necessary, and the new convert can be in the best of possible positions. Often it is easier to have a revival/awakening by changing denominations, because the individual is deadened to those same aspects of their own denomination.

This part, in particular, warrants further reply, because on reflection I find it rather troubling. Suppose that, a couple of years down the line, I feel the "spark" has gone out of my relationship with my wife. I realize the relationship just doesn't fill me with joy and send me head over heels the way it used to. So, on a quest to regain the feelings I once had, I divorce my wife and take another.

Does that make sense to you? Because, while I'm not trying to offend here, that's basically what I'm getting from your post. The argument only makes sense if:

1. The spiritual life is, at its core, all about creating certain feelings in the individual believer. I think this is almost exactly the opposite of the truth.
2. The differences between denominations are largely irrelevant, one will do as well as any other. If this were the case, there would be no point in having different denominations at all.

Individual belief is a ticklish subject, I realize, but if you grow disenchanted with your present church the correct response is to carefully examine what has happened to you, and try to find out why it happened. It may be a flaw in one's particular denomination, in which case the correct response is indeed to try to find another. But your post suggests the other way around: you change denominations purely as means to the end of "revival." Which may not solve the problem at all, especially if the root of the problem was on your end. You'll wind up drifting between churches like a Jesus-freak bar-hopper, experiencing revivals and disillusionments in sequence.

[Felch]

Sola scriptura contradicts the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 12: 27-30 NIV translation

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

How the Protestants take from that the idea that anybody can read the Bible and interpret it for themselves ****ing baffles me. Clearly the scriptures indicate that some people are given different gifts, including the gifts of teaching and interpretation.

[Kidlicious]

Well, that bucks the traditional understanding of the relationship between the faithful and the church, but I don't think we need to get into that. Even if we do, I'm weak on church history and couldn't do the argument justice. I dislike sola scriptura partly from ingrained prejudice but mostly out of distaste for the chaos it engenders.

The question is "what is the traditional (intended) relationship between the faithful (individual) and the church." One thing is that Christ wasn't a conformist, so why would he be one today. The other thing is that the early church was different from the modern church, so although tradition is good we need to follow the proper tradition.

[Jon Miller]

Sola scriptura contradicts the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 12: 27-30 NIV translation

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

How the Protestants take from that the idea that anybody can read the Bible and interpret it for themselves ****ing baffles me. Clearly the scriptures indicate that some people are given different gifts, including the gifts of teaching and interpretation.

Yes, but to believe that the church has the monopoly on the gifts of teaching and interpretation, especially with the high levels of corruption that existed in the Catholic (and Orthodox) churches for centuries, seems to me to be unreasonable.

The protestants don't think that everyone should be teaching/etc (mostly not, I should say, in jus ta few everyone is encouraged to stand up and preach/etc). They do think that everyone should have the right to be able to interpret and teach. The Catholic Church heavily abused their authority, just like the priests in the time of Christ. You do see organization, but not such rigidity, in the descriptions of the early church.

And the interpret here is actually referring to interpreting for those who speak in tongues or prophesy. The modern, protestant/pentecostal, practice of all chaotically speaking in tongues/etc directly goes against Paul's direction. Which their practice wouldn't, I think, if it was a good one.

JM

[Jon Miller]

This part, in particular, warrants further reply, because on reflection I find it rather troubling. Suppose that, a couple of years down the line, I feel the "spark" has gone out of my relationship with my wife. I realize the relationship just doesn't fill me with joy and send me head over heels the way it used to. So, on a quest to regain the feelings I once had, I divorce my wife and take another.

Does that make sense to you? Because, while I'm not trying to offend here, that's basically what I'm getting from your post. The argument only makes sense if:

1. The spiritual life is, at its core, all about creating certain feelings in the individual believer. I think this is almost exactly the opposite of the truth.
2. The differences between denominations are largely irrelevant, one will do as well as any other. If this were the case, there would be no point in having different denominations at all.

Individual belief is a ticklish subject, I realize, but if you grow disenchanted with your present church the correct response is to carefully examine what has happened to you, and try to find out why it happened. It may be a flaw in one's particular denomination, in which case the correct response is indeed to try to find another. But your post suggests the other way around: you change denominations purely as means to the end of "revival." Which may not solve the problem at all, especially if the root of the problem was on your end. You'll wind up drifting between churches like a Jesus-freak bar-hopper, experiencing revivals and disillusionments in sequence.

You are saying that your 'wife' is similar to 'a speciific church'.

I am saying that your 'wife' is like 'Christ'.

Maybe when you got together, it was because of stories that you told her, or some shared experience you had.

Maybe later on, your relationship has weakened (not due to your wife or even you, perhaps, but maybe even due to the shared experience). Sometimes the earlier shared experience/etc/etc has lost it's luster. I am not saying you should leave your wife! I am saying that maybe you should develop some new shared experience or some new activity. It might even be necessary to move. Of course, this metaphor only goes so far.

I defended people changing denominations during the revival process, because I think it is often why people change denominations and I think that a bit of 'stealing the sheep' is perfectly OK (as long as it isn't done in a bad mannered way).

I personally, when I have went through revival processes, have ended up staying a member of the SDA church. Although I have seriously considered leaving before, and the type of SDA church I desire to attend is different than it use to be.

I think it is good for a religion (Christianity) to have differing traditions and organizations. I think it is even good for organizations to have different sub groups. I am an Evangelical Adventist or something of the sort, and I disagree very strongly with the Historic Adventists (which many Christians might not even consider Christian) although I do consider them as part of my community (even though I think some of the doctrines they hold to be dangerous and wrong).

JM

[Elok]

How was the early church different from the modern church? Was it plagued by fewer scandals, heresies, quarrels or dissensions? The epistles would seem to indicate not. Were people less prone to dead faith and apathy? Again, the Bible says no. Were they a disorganized mass of believers each with their own reading of scripture? Absolutely not. Bishops, priests and deacons were all established quite early and are mentioned in the bible (backed up by church tradition, which historically played a very large role WRT interpretation). The main difference, AFAICT, is that we don't live in communes any more, which isn't terribly feasible economically.

As for Christ being a "conformist," there's something seriously wrong with disdaining a course of action purely because large numbers of other people do it. If there is only one truth, why is it desirable that everyone should go running in a different direction? The only conformity problem is when the church is excessively conformed to the surrounding culture.

Xpost, responding to Kid, will respond to JM later.

[Jon Miller]

There were many serious divisions which were all Christian for the first ~300 years, more so than the differences between protestants and catholics even (at the level of the difference between mormon doctrine and traditional christianity or some of the liberal christian doctrine).

If the Orthodox/Catholic authority had not been so abusive (and in some cases, clearly wrong), the protestants wouldn't have split.

I am actually interested in discussing organized religion. My particular denomination is actually quite organized (maybe not Catholic levels, but close), but the Baptist/etc type of lack of organization interests me and seems to be more similar to what was going on in the early church.

JM

[Kidlicious]

Sola scriptura contradicts the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 12: 27-30 NIV translation

27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

How the Protestants take from that the idea that anybody can read the Bible and interpret it for themselves ****ing baffles me. Clearly the scriptures indicate that some people are given different gifts, including the gifts of teaching and interpretation.

Not all of the denominations teach sola scriptura. The methodists don't and you'll find that their doctrine is very close to anglican and catholic doctrine. In fact it might be a copy of anglican doctrine.

Baptists believe in sola scriptura but they have the same conforming tendencies as everyone else

[Kidlicious]

How was the early church different from the modern church? Was it plagued by fewer scandals, heresies, quarrels or dissensions? The epistles would seem to indicate not. Were people less prone to dead faith and apathy? Again, the Bible says no. Were they a disorganized mass of believers each with their own reading of scripture? Absolutely not. Bishops, priests and deacons were all established quite early and are mentioned in the bible (backed up by church tradition, which historically played a very large role WRT interpretation). The main difference, AFAICT, is that we don't live in communes any more, which isn't terribly feasible economically.

As for Christ being a "conformist," there's something seriously wrong with disdaining a course of action purely because large numbers of other people do it. If there is only one truth, why is it desirable that everyone should go running in a different direction? The only conformity problem is when the church is excessively conformed to the surrounding culture.

Xpost, responding to Kid, will respond to JM later.

Reformers generally idealize the early church. In Paul's letters he writes to them as to speak as though they were perfect. Of course, sometimes he rebukes them. But yeah, reformers think the church lost it's way at some point.

Non-conformists generally believe that the masses usually get it wrong. I generally get that idea from the gospel and Bible as well. That doesn't mean that one should be immature in his thinking.

[Elok]

There were many serious divisions which were all Christian for the first ~300 years, more so than the differences between protestants and catholics even (at the level of the difference between mormon doctrine and traditional christianity or some of the liberal christian doctrine).

If the Orthodox/Catholic authority had not been so abusive (and in some cases, clearly wrong), the protestants wouldn't have split.

I am actually interested in discussing organized religion. My particular denomination is actually quite organized (maybe not Catholic levels, but close), but the Baptist/etc type of lack of organization interests me and seems to be more similar to what was going on in the early church.

JM

Now I am, quite sincerely, baffled. What about the scriptures indicates a lack of organization in the early church? Apart from their smaller size and lack of ritual pomp, both of which were necessarily consequences of their underground status, they appear very similar to the later church, with bishops, presbyters and deacons. There was a great deal of disunity, but such was plainly not desired. Most of the letters were written to chastise schismatics or heretics of one kind or another. In any case, they couldn't possibly have been organized along Baptist lines for the simple reason that there was no authority apart from the church hierarchy at the time! Literally. The scriptures were not written yet, there was nothing for a church to fall back on but the inherited authority of the disciples and their literally God-given power to "bind and loose." The only way for a different sect to claim authority was by introducing totally different beliefs, as in gnosticism, or by giving one disciple's opinions precedence above the others'.

Are you saying that the Bible tells us we should all go our own way, creating the same state of affairs the apostles spent years suppressing (as recorded in the Bible)?

WRT abuses of authority, you are oversimplifying. Luther split because of abuses by the church hierarchy, but this was not the case prior to that point (and possibly not the case for all later splits, but I don't know a lot about the Protestant Reformation). The first churches to break away and not be effectively suppressed, IIRC, were monothelites, people who believed that Christ possessed only a divine will. They were not substantially different from the main church except in that respect, which was purely doctrinal. Later on, you have the Cathars/Albigensians, who did reject the authority of the RCC--but the actual break was begun by syncretism. And so on, there are other examples. Far be it from me to defend religious persecution, but I submit to you that, if the church had not been heavy-handed, the fragmentation of the faith would have spun out of control far, far sooner.

[Elok]

You do see organization, but not such rigidity, in the descriptions of the early church.

Paul specifically tells Timothy to admonish a fractious man once or twice, then eject him. I don't see how that's substantially less rigid than later, except insofar as the ejected man wasn't ejected into the hands of the civil authorities to be burned alive.

[Elok]

Reformers generally idealize the early church. In Paul's letters he writes to them as to speak as though they were perfect. Of course, sometimes he rebukes them. But yeah, reformers think the church lost it's way at some point.

I'm afraid reformers tend to make the early church something it never was. They were necessarily run entirely on the authority of their leadership, in the absence of NT scriptures--which clearly indicate a hierarchical power structure already in place less than 100 years after Christ's birth. What is the verse you refer to, about speaking as though they were perfect?