I've spent plenty of time in cross-denominational Christian organisations, so that I was quite shocked to realise I was in a room full of Anglicans, at my first Anglican missions conference!

It had not been important whether someone worshipped the same way as me, or came from the same stream of church history. At an inter-denom Bible College I studied and debated with people from all sorts of churches - some people debated very keenly indeed with each other on points of doctrine, but at base we were all Christians, all in Christ, and all saved through the Cross.
In more recent years I've discovered how seriously some people view small doctrinal differences, and I find it a bit sad that they allow these differences to divide them from fellow Christians.
I've also discovered that most people who call themselves "non-denominational" belong to one or other type of church (eg pentecostal) and those churches often have 'franchise' qualities (eg Calvary Chapels). Hmmm

I may be opening up a big can of worms here but I just have to because it is what I believe. Can you serve god without a church? Definitely! If you don't go to church does that mean you don't serve god. NO! Weather or not you serve god depends on the heart, not a building or an organization. Some of my greatest revelations I have had have happened OUTSIDE a church. Some of my best experiences of god have happened OUTSIDE a church. Does that mean I'm dissing church? Certainly not. It just means that I think that "church" has to be rethought a little. "Tradition" is one of the worst enemies of god because it doesn't allow him to lead people and it often comes from a denominational spirit. Therefore some denominations are so locked in tradition and/or protecting their belief at all costs that they are blind when god tries to lead them in a new direction. I think it really depends on the specific church and not the denomination which determines its ultimate doctrine.

Watz, I can see where you're coming from a little bit and in some of your early statements I can even somewhat agree. One doesn't have to be physically inside a church to have a profound spiritual experience, and I think anyone here will agree with that statement.

However...

"Tradition" is one of the worst enemies of god because it doesn't allow him to lead people and it often comes from a denominational spirit.

I happen to believe that "tradition" is a good thing, not just in church, but in lots of places. Tradition, to me, sometimes can bring out and intensify the sacredness of something in in church setting or even at home. I like Nativity scenes around Christmas, and I traditionally put one up on my mantlepiece. Traditionally I wait until December 24th to get most of my Christmas shopping done (yes, I'm one of them ). Traditionally when lighting up my grill I will give a testosterone-loaded 30 minute discourse on the history of grilling and the many methods used to gauge when the charcoals are ready to throw some meat down and how long to cook it. Now this may be controversial, but when in church, traditionally, I will not take Communion unless I am right and ready to do so, because this is a sacred practice, very personal between me and God, and the last thing I want to do is violate the rules that God has lain out and be "guilty of the body and blood of Christ" (I don't like the idea of little kids taking Communion because they may tend to view it more as "refreshment time" in the middle of service rather than the very serious rite it was meant to be, but that's a whole other ball of wax). There are bad traditions yes, but don't go lumping them all together because some of them are quite useful.

Therefore some denominations are so locked in tradition and/or protecting their belief at all costs that they are blind when god tries to lead them in a new direction.

I can see (and can even agree to a limited extent) with your statement, but I always go on guard when I hear phrases like "new direction". The Bible is rock solid, and the instructions it gives us are equally firm and leaves very little "wiggle room" with regards to how God expects us to worship, behave, and comport ourselves. Can you cite some examples of what you're referring to here?

Some of my best experiences of god have happened OUTSIDE a church. Does that mean I'm dissing church? Certainly not. It just means that I think that "church" has to be rethought a little.

How does church need to be rethought? If you could please cite some examples because this is a very broad and general statement and difficult to respond to without an equally broad and general rebuttal.

In defense of "traditional" "churches" I will say that there are many purposes that God has in mind for our being members of one, chief among them worship of Him. But living entirely away from church and among non-believers will have an adverse effect on your walk with God over the course of time, and you need to hear me well on this because I speak from experience. Congregating and fellowshipping with other Christians not only magnifies the worship of God but also has the tendency to allow Christians to keep each other out of trouble and on the "straight and narrow". When you start to view church as unnecessary ("I can worship God right here from my La-z-boy recliner") you start to fall into a trap because then that integral portion of what God meant for us to do, coming together with other Christians and keeping each other true to God, will tend to have direct ramifications on your personal life.

You will start to sin more and have sins of your non-Christian friends imprinted on you, and it may start out as a small thing, but eventually it will turn into a rampaging elephant. Going to church puts the pachyderm of sin back in the zoo where it belongs and reinforces your walk with God. The old adage of "there's strength in numbers" really is true, especially in the context of a church.

Wow, that turned into an epistle. Sorry about that!

Can you serve god without a church? Definitely! If you don't go to church does that mean you don't serve god. NO!

Yet we are also commanded to be in fellowship with the body of Christ--the Church. If you are not going to church, actively looking for a church, or seeking to start a church, then I would question your obedience.

"Tradition" is one of the worst enemies of god because it doesn't allow him to lead people and it often comes from a denominational spirit. Therefore some denominations are so locked in tradition and/or protecting their belief at all costs that they are blind when god tries to lead them in a new direction.

Tradition is that which is handed down from one generation to the next: the duty of the Church is to preserve the tradition of the faith. If we fail to do that, then we preach another Gospel.

If by "tradition" you mean things like worship styles (High Church vs. Low Church, hymns vs. modern music, organ vs. guitar), then I agree. However, if you mean by tradition, the truths of the faith "I believe in one God the Father Almighty . . . etc.", then I completely disagree. The best worship style in the world is utterly worthless if it abandons the content of the Gospel and the truth of God's Word. God's Word does not change and neither should our message. Any direction aside from the Gospel of Christ crucified is heresy and anathema.

TBG

Be careful not to get hung up on semantics. I remember a friend Mary Rose who gave far more than a tenth of her income to worthwhile charities that directly helped the needy and lost, yet she was chided by her pastor for not tithing. How important is it to our righteousnes that the truck handing out our gifts has a cross painted on the side?

Forsaking the assembly...well...I shan't say corporate worship does not have its important place in the life of a believer. But at the same time I don't think it has to be in a brick and mortar edifice and it does not have to follow the liturgy. Just last month my secretary came in my office while I was on lunch. Sobbing, she told me that the man she planned to marry was having an affair on the side and she never wanted to see him again. It hit her squarely in her sense of self-worth. I had a half hour talk with her about how God had great plans for every human life, how marriage was for people who love God and each other, and how God himself stopped her from making a big mistake before children and divorce were involved. We talked about Jesus, we prayed, hugged, I dried her tears and sent her back to the office feeling like a whole woman rather than a bit of garbage. "Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there also." Even so, Jesus. I would be patently offended if someone told me that was not a form of corporate worship just because we didn't recite the Apostle's Creed.

In business we have a saying, "Thinking outside the box." Too often people think they are showing a conservative respect for the Bible to avoid thinking outside the box. I gently remind such people that Jesus always thought outside the box, claiming that the sabbath was made for man, not vice versa, and that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And all this with respect for his own words that he had come not to overturn the law but to fulfill it.

The Black Glove beat me to it — that the institution of Church (and yes, I do mean “institutional,” as in “organized religion”) is one of those Biblical mandates that shouldn’t be re-thought. As Shadowlander said well too, there are so many reasons why a literal, in-person, local church that is (optimally) preaching the truth and grace of the Gospel is so essential to Christian growth.

Yes, Watz, some parts of local-church forms (only organs, no electric guitars; only electric guitars, no organs, etc.) are not Biblically mandated. But a local-church is. Accountability, real-life fellowship, naturally occurring authentic community, and leadership from men who fit the Biblical requirements for elders and overseers (see 1 Timothy 2-3) are something you can’t get from hanging out with a few Christians to talk about theology, either in a coffee shop somewhere (as many authors are advocating today) or on a message-board forum such as this one.

God forbid either friendly hangouts at a coffee shop or the Christianity discussions here on NarniaWeb substitute for the local church. One may learn a lot of stuff from each other here on this forum, but none of you guys will be aware (unless I choose to outline it specifically) in areas of sin in my life. None of us (so far) is qualified to expound the Scriptures as a pastor or elder needs to do. None of us has experience to sort through conflicts between members (Matthew 18) and make judgments, or to throw out a member who isn’t behaving as a Christian should (1 Corinthians 5). (Moderators don’t count in this regard; NarniaWeb is not even a specifically Christian site anyway.)

A Biblical church must have parameters, structure, emphasis on what Scripture emphasizes and looseness on what Scripture leaves open (e.g. Romans 14 / 1 Corinthians 8 issues). Yes, lots of churches confuse their own personal forms and traditions for the Gospel, and that needs to be corrected. But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh wot?

One of the best books on this subject, readable and yet in-depth, is Why We Love the Church by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. It’s realistic, admitting the Church has issues. But a true Christian should not say “I love Jesus, but I can’t stand the Church.” It would be like saying you enjoy your best friend, but you can’t stand his wife and hate her. A true believer will love the church, and will struggle with its issues, but will stick with it nonetheless. And a Christian will recognize that if Jesus died for the true Church and can put up with its people’s problems, then so should we.

Those same authors’ first book, actually, deals with the critics of church who want to throw it all out and restart “without” any traditions at all, supposedly — the “emergent” or “emerging” church. What they want to reject includes the quirky church “stuff,” such as steeples and organs, that we don’t really need to have church, and things we do need like faithfulness to Scripture and Biblically required spiritual leadership. That book is Why We’re Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. I heartily recommend both. They’re fun to read, and even better, they are solid, loving, grace-based reminders of Biblical truth.

EDIT a little while later: Here is an excerpt from a review of Why We Love the Church that very well summarizes not only the book, but the truth.

In Why We Love the Church, DeYoung and Kluck defend the visible, organized, hierarchical institution that is so fashionable to hate. And they do so realistically; no idealistic view of the church is pressed upon the readers. The authors are clear that, just like individual Christians, the church is imperfect. They admit that there are times they don't feel like going to church. They admit that there are people they don't like. They admit that there is music they don't like. And they admit that some church practices are stale, irreverent, or silly. Ted Kluck, for example, hates being told to smile and greet those who are near him while the piano plays. "I have hated, and always will hate, meet and greet for the reason that it feels inauthentic and awkward." Me too.

But despite the imperfections, the Church is the Bride of Christ. It was instituted by Him. And it is more than two or three intellectuals sipping lattes in a bookstore. The apostles wrote to pastors and congregations about preaching, and order, and discipline. They instructed them, and rebuked them, and strove for their well-being, and loved them. We should too.

There is no such thing, the authors say, as Churchless Christianity. "Churchless Christianity makes about as much sense as a Christless church, and has just as much biblical warrant." Christians need each other. They need the leadership. They need the order. They need the doctrines and the creeds. They need the accountability. "The main reason, I think--people don't like the church is because the church has walls. It defines truth, shows us the way to live, and tells us the news we must believe in order to be saved."

I remember a friend Mary Rose who gave far more than a tenth of her income to worthwhile charities that directly helped the needy and lost, yet she was chided by her pastor for not tithing. How important is it to our righteousnes that the truck handing out our gifts has a cross painted on the side?

This seems a false dichotomy. Without knowing more about this anecdote, I would hesitate to use it to support either “side.” A Christian’s devotion should first and foremost be to proclaiming the Gospel, to himself and to others. That message may get out through a ministry that has trucks with crosses printed on the side, or it may not. But it won’t get out through a secular charity.

I don’t know how say this bluntly: if someone was giving one-tenth of his income to the Red Cross or something, and not donating to a local church that was directly preaching the Gospel of repentance from sin and faith in Christ, then that is not a good thing. God may use the Red Cross or another secular charity as a means of common grace, keeping the world from becoming as terrible as it could be. But Christians who believe that mankind’s real problem is sin, not just lack of food and shelter, would naturally prefer, along with wanting to meet people’s physical needs, meeting their greatest need of all: redemption from sin.

To fill someone’s stomach while ignoring the deadness in their heart is neither Biblical nor truly loving.

So again, I don’t know the full story behind that anecdote. Maybe the local-church mentioned wasn’t doing much more than hanging out doing local-community-building glee clubs and whatnot, in which case, donating to the Red Cross or something would be preferable. But that would be a choice for the lesser of two less-optimal options. Far better is to preach the Gospel directly while also, perhaps, caring for people physically. But the priority ought to be on addressing the problem of spiritual death in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 1-2), rather than only patching up wounds with Band-aids as are the limits of secular relief agencies.

”Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there also.”

‘Twas only a matter of time before that verse came up. Only recently did I learn — thanks to a “Discover the Word” radio series about commonly misunderstood verses — that of all the things this verse is talking about, it is not talking about what “generates” a real church.

The context of this passage (Matthew 18: 15-20) is a single topic: dealing with a brother who has sinned against you. It’s all one paragraph, all one meaning. Jesus didn’t start talking about conflict resolution, and then spiritual warfare or “binding” Satan or demons (verse 18) and then have a random thought about a worth-faith concept of getting stuff you want (verse 19) and then finish off with a truism about how people “generate” a church (verse 20). Rather, it’s all one thought: the necessity of dealing with personal offenses, first personally, then if that doesn’t work, a witness or two, and if that doesn’t work, an organized structure of a church. Thus, these three verses, so often misread ...

”[. . .] 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

... are still about a personal conflict being resolved by an ordered assembly of believers. Verse 18: As rabbis made “binding” decisions in the culture of that day, so believers in a church leadership make legal-type decisions about personal conflicts if it comes to that. Verse 19: These decisions, somehow, have a correlation with what has already been decided by God in Heaven. 20: God is present during such gatherings.

So does this mean I’m saying God is not present in a coffee shop where believers are gathered, or even here on this message board? Of course He is. But Matthew 18:20 is not, and never was, a directive outlining how any time believers hang out, that generates a real church.

If there was some way to do that and also have the ability to hold each other accountable, have elders/overseers, and administer the sacraments/ordinances such as baptisms and Communion, then yes, we could do that without bricks-and-mortar buildings. But again, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Literal buildings are not Biblically mandated, but there is nothing wrong with them either. However, church leadership, the ordinances/sacraments, naturally occurring relationships with God-centered accountability and exhortation toward holiness, are most certainly mandated, and you can only get that in an organized church.

In business we have a saying, “Thinking outside the box.” Too often people think they are showing a conservative respect for the Bible to avoid thinking outside the box. I gently remind such people that Jesus always thought outside the box, claiming that the sabbath was made for man, not vice versa, and that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And all this with respect for his own words that he had come not to overturn the law but to fulfill it.

While I agree that certainly some Christians can be very efficient and non-creative in their thinking, I don’t think Scripture portrays Jesus as thinking so far outside the box as what you are saying. Though this is commonly assumed — and I have assumed it myself — in the case of Jesus vs. the Pharisees, it wasn’t that they were so hung up on the real Law and Jesus brought in some healthy real-world perspectives, as if He were abolishing the Law. Rather, it was the Pharisees who had “thought outside the box.” I say this for three reasons, all perhaps best found outlined by Christ Himself in Mark 7.

1. The Pharisees were hypocritical; they didn’t really care in their hearts for the meaning behind all the commandments they followed (verses 6-7).

2. They weren’t teaching the real commandments of God anyway, but made up man-centered traditions and told people to follow them as well (verses 7-8).

3. Even worse, the Pharisees didn’t just pile man-made laws on top of the real Law, they swapped their own made-up rules for the real ones (verses 9-13). In so doing they didn’t just make the real Law more annoying to follow, they denied the real Law and thus the God Who made it.

So, rather than “thinking outside the box,” Jesus pointed back to the real “box” of the Law — the reason behind it (i.e., Himself), and the true inside-the-box reason for the Sabbath and such. They had failed to follow the Law in their hearts, failed to follow only that standard, and rejected that standard in favor of man-made prohibitions.

We can see plenty of parallels to that today and should call them out when we see them. But we must be very careful with our language here; I think in their haste to assure people of God’s love, too many Christians minimize the real Law and God’s holy standards right alongside the “laws” and Talmud-style rules that people made up.

Finally, another context check, just in case: it stunned me not long ago to read the whole camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle example and see what it truly meant to the original hearers.

Here Jesus is not making some statement about the Virtuous Poor, or about how possessions get in the way of true faith. Rather, to his disciples — who you may recall reacted with shock at His statement — He was in effect saying that it would be easier for a literal camel to go through the eye of a needle than for Mother Teresa, Bono, Billy Graham, the Pope, etc., to enter the Kingdom of God. To Christ’s disciples, the “rich” was not our modern conception, but a person whose wealth enabled him to take more time to be spiritual and work on righteousness and donate to worthy causes.

Does the whole passage — not just the metaphor, separated from context as if it were a standalone Proverb — fit this view?

And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

Mark 10: 23-25 (ESV)(emphasis added)

Again, note the disciples’ astonishment! Why would they be astonished if they thought that of course, the money of the rich would get in the way of their spiritual concerns? We already have other verses that are truly about how possessions can get in the way of worshiping God, but this passage is not about that. There’s more in what they say next:

And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”

Mark 10: 26-27 (ESV)(emphasis added)

Here is the true meaning, then: if a rich person can’t get into God’s kingdom, no one can — at least not by himself, not by virtue of his wealth or generosity or spirituality. Only God can make this possible. Only if God makes it possible can a rich or “spiritual” person be saved. In their day, the most “spiritual” people were the rich people; in our day, the most “spiritual” people are the secular charity workers, community leaders, or perhaps Bono or others who promote particular causes.

But do you notice how this is a meaning almost exactly opposite how the verse is read today, especially by the “social justice” kinds of “Christians” (real and otherwise) who act as though bandaging the wounds is more important than raising the spiritually dead? Saying that none of them will make it to the Kingdom apart from Christ is a much more effective parallel to Jesus’ original meaning. And it makes things all the more sobering for all of us: only Christ through His fulfillment of the Law (the real one) and suffering and death as an atoning sacrifice for sins (1 John 4:10), not human works or “righteousness,” can save.

Lest you forget, it was commonly believed that wealth was a sign of God's favour rather than a sign of misplaced priorities. Even today we have a misplaced gospel message in some quarters that wealth, health and safety come from giving generously to your local church. In other words, investing in God, Inc. and getting your dividend at the end of the quarter. Jesus contradicted that when he told a rich man who claimed he kept the law to sell everything he had and give it to the poor. He could not and Jesus commented upon it.

Also do not forget that saying, "be fed!" or "be warm" is not righteousness. That's in the New Testament too.

EveningStar, is it possible you are approaching this from mostly a single angle -- the one that believes correcting Christian apathy toward The Poor is of vital importance? The subtle assumption might be there; I'm just guessing, based on what you have written so far.

If so, I agree that this is a problem; most Christians would! But it is not the biggest problem, just as correcting the "social gospel" or lack of spiritual discernment among Christians is not the problem.

Lest anyone conclude that someone who critiques a "social gospel" is thus automatically leaning toward some kind of "personal prosperity" "gospel" or a "sit there and do nothing in the world" "gospel," the Biblical truth lies apart from all of these false "gospels." The real Gospel is that Christ died to save sinners. Anything else that supplants this either overtly or subtly is no gospel at all, but is at best a distraction from Biblical balance.

- Through smooth talking, health-wealth teachers such as Osteen encourage: Do more for yourself. God is crazy for you and exists primarily as a means for personal improvement.

- Good news becomes good advice for “emergent” people who claim: Do more for your world. God exists primarily to empower you to change your community and bring His goodness to Earth through people who are living a gospel, which turns out to be no Gospel at all.

- Such a perspective is almost identical to many cultural fundamentalists who may say they regard Scripture highly, but mainly urge one another: Do more for God.

For any of the three, the system may be slightly different, Horton writes. But they all start with the same thing: do more — as opposed to the real Gospel, that Jesus came not to announce more things for people to do, but to announce to His people Who He is and what He has done.

The truth will be evident once Christians stop trying to avoid extremes or The Bad Way Other Christians Have Done It, which leads inevitably to overcorrections, into equal and opposite extremes. Instead of focusing on what we are against, we must focus on what we are for: Christ and His truth and Grace should be in the exact center of our minds and hearts. Then can we rightly align our beliefs of how we interact with others and how we must avoid un-Biblical extremes on either "side," for the glory of Christ and the balance of His truth and grace.

My church has a very simple way of dealing with the tithe issue. We proclaim that the tithe belongs to the Lord, not to the church body. We do have offering plates but they are in the back of the room. We don't pass them around during the service. And every week, we say this prayer, "Lord, what do you want me to give? And who do you want me to give it to?" This gives us the freedom to tithe the amount God is calling us to give and it gives us the freedom to give it to whomever God is telling us needs it. We also believe that if every Christian were to follow this, no church or ministry would be in need.

I won't be the judge if giving the Red Cross or other secular 'help groups' is good or bad. But I will say the pastor is in the wrong if he is telling someone that they should give their tithe to his church outright. Yes, the church needs financial support, but it is not the pastor's position to tell someone else what to do with God's money. He can give advice and express a need, but if someone is giving thier tithe to another ministry, while attending a particular church body, that tithe is between that person and God. That's just my take on it.

Perhaps something in what I say below will clear up any misconceptions on where I stand.

It is one of the underpinnings of the Calvinist arguement that God is prescient, that he has foreknowledge of the future, whether he chooses to cause the future or merely acknowledges it. The doctrine of predestination seems to hinge upon the idea that God knows how things will turn out.

I take prescience in another direction...that God foreknew in order to make Man in his image, it would cost him the death of Christ upon the cross that some men might find salvation from the inevitibililty of sin.

There are many things in my life that turned out well, but which I mght have balked at doing if I knew how hard or how costly they would have been. God knowingly and intentionally planted a harvest and put the system of faith and practice in place necessary to get the greatest yield. When you're growing a crop as dangerous as beings with free will, that's the way you do it. We have a previous example of this, a war in Heaven where some angels chose to trust and follow God and some did not. Perhaps it is inevitable that any race of sentient beings with free will go through such a crisis that separates the successful from the unsuccessful.

This begs the question then...why we, weak mortals, are entrusted with going out to evangelize when God could cheaply and easily send every apartment, house, palace, castle, and grass hut a postcard inviting them to accept Christ's freewill gift of salvation.

My views on this are that we, made in the image of God, are to express that internal mark by acting as God would act, being creative, forgiving, chariatable, evangelical, truthful, respectful and loving. We not only re-enact Christ's last supper through our communion, we also re-enact God's acts of mercy, compassion, creativity, justice and education through carrying out our limited responsibilities in our limited capacity in ways as close to Christ's as we are capable.

God hates the sin, not the sinner. If the two can be separated, God can and will provide the opportunity. However I don't believe, as many do, that God was walking through Eden one day when he saw his prized pets wearing clothes and tossing apple cores at one another, gasping, putting his hand over his heart, and saying, "WHAT IS ALL THIS??? I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'D DO SUCH A THING!!!" And then being so angry that if Jesus didn't die on the cross to make him feel avenged he'd wipe us all out like so many mice in the corn crib.

Let me be absolutely clear on this: I absolutely believe we are incapable of saving ourselves. I absolutely believe we are fallen short of the Glory of God and are in need of salvation. I'm not "one of those people" and my theology can't be simply disregarded because I am "one of them". I am not a follower of, nor do I trend towards, universalism. But I do not...and cannot...see God as unpleasantly surprised with Christ's salvation being some sort of "Plan B". I believe that while God does not condone the sin, he understood that an entire race of beings with free will would not 100 percent choose good, that sin would be enevitable, and that in order to even start the whole mess in the first place he would have to have "Plan A" which was a way of reaping a harvest of people willing to have their sin dealt with.

To think otherwise is to somehow believe God only developed foreknowledge after man sinned, in which case we have to admit that man's sin somehow improved God.

"Tradition" is one of the worst enemies of god because it doesn't allow him to lead people and it often comes from a denominational spirit.

I happen to believe that "tradition" is a good thing, not just in church, but in lots of places.

Tradition is that which is handed down from one generation to the next: the duty of the Church is to preserve the tradition of the faith. If we fail to do that, then we preach another Gospel.

TBG

In business we have a saying, "Thinking outside the box." Too often people think they are showing a conservative respect for the Bible to avoid thinking outside the box. I gently remind such people that Jesus always thought outside the box, claiming that the sabbath was made for man, not vice versa, and that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And all this with respect for his own words that he had come not to overturn the law but to fulfill it.

Okay I didn't mean that Tradition is bad but that it becomes bad when god leads people in a new direction. By "new" I don't mean untrue but outside their current mode of thinking for how many of us now that God is so big that we will always be discovering something about him that is new to us. The revelation has always been there but it is new to us. Lots of churches are so caught up in the beliefs they hold already that they are blind when God throws a curve ball at them not to mention skeptical. Like say when God threw a curve ball at the Iraelites when he sent them Jesus. The revelation had been there all along. There are over a 180 prophecies about him in the Old Testament for pete sake but they were so stuck in tradition that they were blind when God tried to introduce new truths.

So did God think outside of the box? No. He just introduced a new side of it which people had been predicting all along and which most people were not prepared to go.

God's word to man and God's plan of salvation are me telling you to hold a compress over the wound. I'm not giving you a complex medical explanation, I'm only saying "If you want to live, hold this puppy right there and don't let go till I say so."

That doesn't mean fibrin is causing erythrocytes to link together and clot because the outbleeding speed is reduced through capillary compression.

The amount we know about God is like the amount that people needing brain surgery typically know about brain surgery. Or to be even more accurate, the amount that dogs know about veterinary care that need veterinary care.

We write grand sounding books about soteriology and eschatology, but in fact all we really know are that we screwed up, we're in some kind of danger, and Christ can help us if we let him. It is senseless for us to pretend we fully understand what happened when Christ died on the cross, or that we can even know BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT what would have happened if everybody had stopped, said, "My my, this Jesus fellow is absolutely right, let's worship him!!" and he'd never been nailed to the cross.

We don't know how it works. Fact is, most of us don't know what Pseudephedrine hydrochloride is or how it works. But when we get the sniffles we take Sudafed and trust it to handle the problem.

Our ignorance of God is profound. The one thing we really know is that he's the kindly, intelligent and powerful fellow that can help us, and much more than that we cannot say.

EveningStar, I enjoyed reading your thoughts, and this part in particular leaped out to me:

Perhaps it is inevitable that any race of sentient beings with free will go through such a crisis that separates the successful from the unsuccessful.

Have you heard of John Piper's "best of all possible worlds" concept? This holds that God, being perfect and the most loving, has created even in this world, flawed with sin and rebellion against Him, the best possible world there ever could be, intrinsically. Piper goes so far as to call this another "point" of "Calvinism":

God governs the course of history so that, in the long run, His glory will be more fully displayed and His people more fully satisfied than would have been the case in any other world. If we look only at the way things are now in the present era of this fallen world, this is not the best-of-all-possible worlds. But if we look at the whole course of history, from creation to redemption to eternity and beyond, and see the entirety of God's plan, it is the best-of-all-possible plans and leads to the best-of-all-possible eternities. And therefore this universe (and the events that happen in it from creation into eternity, taken as a whole) is the best-of-all-possible-worlds.

What does Piper mean when he says he's a seven-point Calvinist? - Jan. 23, 2006

So far I haven't heard anyone here say that God had an "emergency backup" Plan B if His originally created human beings chose to sin. Rather, the sacrifice of the perfect Lamb, Jesus Christ Himself, was "foreknown before the foundation of the world" (1 Peter 1:20).

Moreover, I'm sure a lot of Christians allow themselves to slip into acting according to this way of thinking -- that Jesus' sacrifice was a Plan B and that really if God had His way there would be no sin, but darn it, He just has to allow free will! But very few (except perhaps the Open Theists) would claim directly to believe that God must "up the odds" for Himself, set the universe running and doing its thing, refrain from seeing the ultimate outcome in advance (if He has that power at all) and then play catch-up through the Cross and crucifixion.

Scripture is clear that God is a God of holiness and thus anger against those who disobey Him. But He does not need to yell or stamp His feet in a vengeful fit (the way portrayed by cultural fundamentalists who, though a dying breed, are still around and still overdose on wrath and downplay Grace). And like you wrote, in His sovereignty, He had it all ordained from the beginning! -- though without directly being the author of sin.

Perhaps we are more in agreement than either of us thinks. Perhaps either one of us has assumed the other is coming from one of those either/or-agenda perspectives; that is why I hoped to ask, in my last post, where you were coming from, rather than assume you were one of Them. (I'm not sure what you were referring to above!) Maybe we can therefore agree to ask without assuming -- or in my case, without going ahead and writing a response in anticipation of a presupposition that you may or may not hold.

"Son of Earth, shall we be friends?"

Aslan, Prince Caspian

And hey, even if you were one of "Them," EveningStar, I am compelled to respect and share both truth and grace with you both as a moderator here and as a Christian.

So let me start with a more-open question: of which "Them" have you previously been thought as being a member? You have made me curious.

While I don't have time--or inclination--to write a whole essay on this, let me say the following. "The best of all possible worlds" originated not with John Piper but rather with Gottfried Leibnitz.

On what seems like a primarily protestant thread, I may shock you when I mention even the catholics have the concept of how sin is a sort of blessing in disguise because it shows men a depth of forgiving love they would otherwise not know.

I reject predestination because I believe it is an effect, not a cause. It is not God's foreknowledge that makes us sin, but rather our sin that gives him foreknowledge. God never said, "Hmm, I'm bored. I think I'll predestine some baby to eternal hell." I think you and I both agree this never happens. Every decision a loving God makes about living things with feelings is difficult, thoughtful, and carefully made.

In practical terms, the final outcome of God predestining people and people acting and reacting in a series of steps God could accurately predict is practically the same. My rejection of predestination as a concept is that it blames God for the failure of some people to accept the free will gift of Christ. Why should we evangelize when God is actively discouraging some people from the gospel message? He's not, of course. A loving God does not arbitrarily choose someone for damnation. People arbitrarily choose themselves for damnation by rejecting salvation. That God knows this in advance may indeed cause him not to waste his time on those folks. That is the closest I ever have come...or will come...to the idea of Limited Atonement.

I realize to some folks wrapped up in "Persistance of the Saints" this sounds horrific. That somehow God doesn't force you not to blow it. But I believe in the end God gives people what they want...to those who love him an eternity with him, and to those who don't love him, an eternity without him. Which is...no humour intended...sheer hell.

My cryptic reference to "them" was an invitation to fill in the blank with an ism of your choice...docetism, occamism, gnosticism...you name it. Fact is, people have a habit of sticking labels on a person and to consider labeling them a definitive form of dealing with them.

Lastly I appreciate the tone of your last post. It was good to hear it from your own....fingertips?

EDIT a few minutes later:

I don't mind "labels"; they help categorize things, but of course they do have limitations. Moreover, they must never take the place of Christian charity: I may disagree with a literal-postmillennialist, or perhaps an amillennialist like a certain someone in this thread (I'm still sorting out that issue). But Lord willing, I will not be un-Christlike to him, especially if he is my Christian brother.

At the same time, I won't avoid using labels to help "sort out" where his beliefs mostly lie; I'll just try to be careful about it, maintain an attitude of correctability if that is necessary, and mostly clarify whenever that is necessary too what I mean by a "label" (as I do below).

Also, Piper did borrow the original concept from Gottfried Leibnitz, and says so. He has also quoted (with heavy disclaimers) statements from atheistic "Objectivism" philosopher Ayn Rand, as long as they jibe with Scriptural truth.

EveningStar, it sounds like God has, so far, predestined you to be a free-willie. (Note of clarification: I say this term with affection, not derision, despite how it may sound! Not all people who reject the concept of predestination would call themselves Arminians or have similar views on eternal insecurity.)

A lot of people believe the Reformed concept of predestination is like this drawing (click to enlarge) by a former member in the second Christianity thread.

The figure in the middle is supposed to be God, with Hell on one side, and Heaven on the other. With only raw power in His nature and no love or mercy -- and without the idea represented that it is man alone who is responsible for his sinful nature and choices -- He intentionally drops one person on the slope rolling toward Heaven, and another poor soul on purpose on the slope rolling toward Hell.

I can understand how that impression may be out there. The concept is so contrary to the default God-is-only-love assumptions of contemporary evangelicalism -- for years I was on that side of it myself, by default!

But I don't know of any informed Reformed Christian who accepts this as an accurate and Biblical representation. By Reformed, I mean that person who passionately desires in his head and heart to follow the Bible's clear wording on how it is man, not God, who takes all the fault for sin, and God, not man, Who gets all the glory for a person's salvation (based on the truths of Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, etc., especially Romans 8-9 and Ephesians 1-2). Such a person (I hope I am one of them) is driven to emulate Christ and evangelize in the world not out of duty or desperation, but gratitude, to the glorious God Who "unfairly" and alone saved him or her.

As WiseWoman rebutted:

But here's the thing: we're all balls rolling down the same hill. We chose that way in Eden (that's why the Bible says we sinned through Adam). We're the ones who have "dropped the ball," so to speak. God graciously picks up some of us and sets us on another path. In effect, He overrules what we chose of our own free will, in order to save us.

And as The Black Glove summarized a few replies later (if you click there, you'll also see the simultaneous debate with a well-meaning Mormon member who dropped by):

[T]hat picture does have a flaw: God is dropping the Christian. Indeed, God pushes the Christian upward. We chose Hell of our free will: everyone who goes to Hell wants to be there. In the words of Satan in John Milton's Paradise Lost "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

In fact, it is the Holy Spirit that changes that fact for God's elect: opening their eyes to see the truth and accept it. In essence, the elect choose God of their own free will because their will is really freer than the will of an unregenerate person.

So the informed Reformed will certainly not reject the man's-responsibility parts of what you've outlined, EveningStar. Instead, and perhaps rather frustratingly, he'll nod his agreement. That's because the informed Reformed Christian is a compatibilist, seeing how in Scripture and in present reality, man's will and God's will both exist.

The "Calvinist" only says: according to Scripture, man has a will, but his sin nature is stronger than that and will always result in the same choices toward rejection of God. However, God's will is stronger than both. Any time He likes, He can save anyone, to the uttermost, for His own purpose and glory. As I wrote above, man takes all the guilt for choosing to sin, but God gets all the glory for choosing to save. For me, and many others on this site and in the Church, this leads not to glumness, but rejoicing, for now that we can mourn over our wretched estate and what would have happened had God not chosen us, we can truly celebrate His grace.