Christianity can't be done alone.

theological

A thought and a thread.

I was looking through Hebrews and particularly chapter 10 when the author tells us to keep going in the Christian faith.

Hebrews 10:19-25 wrote:

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

For context in Hebrews we've just seen Jesus being spoken about as the perfect once for all sacrifice for sin and in the next few verses we've seen that falling away from Jesus is dangerous.

The solution for keeping going as a Christian is to stick with the people God has brought to you in the church to keep going. The author tells us to hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering in verse 23. He implores Christians to consider how to stir one another up to love and good works and says in verse 25 that Christians should not neglect to meet together so that we can encourage one another to keep going to the final day.

For Christians -

Is this how we see church?

Do you find opportunities to meet with other Christians during the week?

Why is it essential that Christians work in community?

For Non-Christians:
Do you think Western individualism is undermining community?

It could be argued that the decline of church has led to a void in community. Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

smacl

theological wrote: »

For Non-Christians:
Do you think Western individualism is undermining community?

No at all. If anything, I think it is unchecked capitalism and an ongoing drift to the right that is undermining community. People working and commuting all hours in a struggle to make rent are left with minimal personal time to engage as part of a community. Armies of marketers encouraging people to spend money they don't have to buy things they don't need which will never make them happy adds to this. Genuine individualism combats this type of generic attack on society.

It could be argued that the decline of church has led to a void in community. Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

I'd say that there's a correlation between the two but would guess that in this country the cause is more likely to relate to the shift from a largely agrarian rural society in the past which was naturally communal to an industrial urban society which is not. In my opinion, the decline of the church most probably has more to do with the fact that it was never popular but was previously inescapable.

machaseh

You see,

As someone who grew up as a fundamentalist evangelical christian but is LGBT:

I am just kind of done with the whole church thing. It just hasn't given me what I was looking for in terms of spirituality and meaning.

Yes I know there are churches out there that will accept me for who I am without pushing me in the direction of celibacy or a straight relationship against my will as my family used to do (and part of it still would).

But due to these negative experiences I am just kind of done with the whole church thing. And I think that that is something that needs to be respected and that you don't need to be any bit less Christian for it.

I experience my christianity in a spiritual, personal sense now. And for me this is sufficient. I have found a good balance in my life in this regard.

theological

machaseh wrote: »

You see,

As someone who grew up as a fundamentalist evangelical christian but is LGBT:

I am just kind of done with the whole church thing. It just hasn't given me what I was looking for in terms of spirituality and meaning.

Yes I know there are churches out there that will accept me for who I am without pushing me in the direction of celibacy or a straight relationship against my will as my family used to do (and part of it still would).

But due to these negative experiences I am just kind of done with the whole church thing. And I think that that is something that needs to be respected and that you don't need to be any bit less Christian for it.

I experience my christianity in a spiritual, personal sense now. And for me this is sufficient. I have found a good balance in my life in this regard.

Thanks for your post. I'm interested in finding out more.

How did church make you feel not accepted?

How do you experience your Christianity in a spiritual or personal sense now?

Finally how do you harmonise the Bible saying that Christianity should be lived out in community with trying to be a lone ranger Christian in your own walk?

machaseh

theological wrote: »

Thanks for your post. I'm interested in finding out more.

How did church make you feel not accepted?

How do you experience your Christianity in a spiritual or personal sense now?

Finally how do you harmonise the Bible saying that Christianity should be lived out in community with trying to be a lone ranger Christian in your own walk?

1. People saying that LGBT relations were an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Preachers giving out on other churches that did accept LGBT as a sign of the end of times. Parents pushing for pursuing straight relationships despite knowing I am LGBT. Homophobia among peers. Not being allowed any position of authority in christian student organizations if you were a 'practicing homosexual'. The list would go on and on.

2. That's a bit difficult to put in words honestly. Let's just say I like to treat others as I would like them do unto me. I have a sense of honesty and morality which I personally tie to my spirituality and of which I often see an absence in many others.

3. The issue is that as an expat here in Dublin, I don't really feel any sort of sense of community at all now. I have no family here and only very few friends, especially Irish friends, due to the enormous cultural mismatch between Dutch and Irish people. I feel mostly alone in my life in general and my spirituality is not an exception to that. Now when I do visit my family abroad I will go to church together with them without any issues.

smacl

machaseh wrote: »

The issue is that as an expat here in Dublin, I don't really feel any sort of sense of community at all now. I have no family here and only very few friends, especially Irish friends, due to the enormous cultural mismatch between Dutch and Irish people. I feel mostly alone in my life in general and my spirituality is not an exception to that. Now when I do visit my family abroad I will go to church together with them without any issues.

Don't know where you're based but, Michael Burrows is very much on the liberal end of the Christian spectrum and might have a congregation near you. Church aside, meetup.com could be worth a look as they seem to have a fair number of ex-pats on board, certainly in the cycling group I occasionally head out with. Noticed an LGBT hiking group on one of the summary emails a few weeks back.

homer911

It always rankles with me when I hear people describe themselves as Christian/Catholic/Spiritual/Religious and yet they say its a personal thing and no, they don't go to church.

Real Christians are well used to the metaphor of taking a coal out of the fire - the importance of Christian community and fellowship cant be understated. If you consider yourself a Christian, you had better get used to Christian company - you will be spending a lot of time with them in the future.

My church is a wonderful melting pot of nationalities, ages, educational backgrounds, skills, faith journeys. Sometimes the best part of going to church is the tea, coffee and fellowship after the service - definitely a big family occasion

smacl

homer911 wrote: »

It always rankles with me when I hear people describe themselves as Christian/Catholic/Spiritual/Religious and yet they say its a personal thing and no, they don't go to church.

Real Christians are well used to the metaphor of taking a coal out of the fire - the importance of Christian community and fellowship cant be understated. If you consider yourself a Christian, you had better get used to Christian company - you will be spending a lot of time with them in the future.

My church is a wonderful melting pot of nationalities, ages, educational backgrounds, skills, faith journeys. Sometimes the best part of going to church is the tea, coffee and fellowship after the service - definitely a big family occasion

And yet Christianity also has a long history of ascetism with very many famous Christian hermits. The notion of what some posters on this forum consider to be a 'real' Christian is rather narrow.

machaseh

homer911 wrote: »

My church is a wonderful melting pot of nationalities, ages, educational backgrounds, skills, faith journeys.

And is it also a big melting pot of LGBT diversity? I doubt it.

theological

I think the point isn't so much what I define as a real Christian or what homer911 defines as a Christian but what Jesus and the Apostles tell us in Scripture. As essential part of Christianity is community. This passage is only one example.

I would hold the same criticism towards the idea that online preachers are somehow better than going to church and serving God together and being in community with one another.

uck51js9zml2yt

machaseh wrote: »

1. People saying that LGBT relations were an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Preachers giving out on other churches that did accept LGBT as a sign of the end of times. Parents pushing for pursuing straight relationships despite knowing I am LGBT. Homophobia among peers. Not being allowed any position of authority in christian student organizations if you were a 'practicing homosexual'. The list would go on and on.

2. That's a bit difficult to put in words honestly. Let's just say I like to treat others as I would like them do unto me. I have a sense of honesty and morality which I personally tie to my spirituality and of which I often see an absence in many others.

3. The issue is that as an expat here in Dublin, I don't really feel any sort of sense of community at all now. I have no family here and only very few friends, especially Irish friends, due to the enormous cultural mismatch between Dutch and Irish people. I feel mostly alone in my life in general and my spirituality is not an exception to that. Now when I do visit my family abroad I will go to church together with them without any issues.

You've obviously never read what God says a out homosexuality in Romans, or you have and don't believe it.
Christianity isn't "spiritual" only...its practical and there are certain characteristics and changes expected in a life who claims to be Christian shown in the Bible.
If those characteristics aren't there then it doesn't matter what a person says they are. It's just not true.

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

A thought and a thread.

I was looking through Hebrews and particularly chapter 10 when the author tells us to keep going in the Christian faith.



For context in Hebrews we've just seen Jesus being spoken about as the perfect once for all sacrifice for sin and in the next few verses we've seen that falling away from Jesus is dangerous.

The solution for keeping going as a Christian is to stick with the people God has brought to you in the church to keep going. The author tells us to hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering in verse 23. He implores Christians to consider how to stir one another up to love and good works and says in verse 25 that Christians should not neglect to meet together so that we can encourage one another to keep going to the final day.

For Christians -

Is this how we see church?

Do you find opportunities to meet with other Christians during the week?

Why is it essential that Christians work in community?

For Non-Christians:
Do you think Western individualism is undermining community?

It could be argued that the decline of church has led to a void in community. Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

I've commented elsewhere on what I've found to be problematic in the church (where church is defined as a building you go to where x amount of the same Christians meet on at least Sundays)

I wonder if meeting and being encouraged and built up can be accomplished otherwise. I mean, I'm looking at a lot of Greg Boyd sermons and they encourage and build up far more than anything I've heard in a number of churches these last years - even though the church "at his house" is an impractical distance away in a "be there in a physical sense every Sunday".

Similarily, reading the thoughts of a Christian writer can be considered a meeting up, a place to find encouragement.

I don't think the verse you quote prescribes church as it has come to be done. There are certainly pitfalls in it, not least, groupthink. It might be that "church" is somewhat dangerous to ones faith.

antiskeptic

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

You've obviously never read what God says a out homosexuality in Romans, or you have and don't believe it.

I make no comment other than to say building a doctrine on a verse or two is a dangerous thing. On this rock .. for example.

Christianity isn't "spiritual" only...its practical and there are certain characteristics and changes expected in a life who claims to be Christian shown in the Bible.
If those characteristics aren't there then it doesn't matter what a person says they are. It's just not true.

What does this mean? Say you have a homosexual (and sexuality is one of the more embedded things in a person) who in their 30's is saved?

What's supposed to happen them? Are they to 'about turn' based on a verse or two or three? Seems like slim pickings to live your life upon. Are they meant to interpret as you interpret? Ignore other 'progressive' interpretatIons?

Talk of how LGBT ought be dealt with. Very surface, bible-rule based think. Black/white. As if LGBT, assuming it is a result of a broken order, is a matter of waving a magic repentance wand.

"Without me you can do nothing". What happens if he doesn't wave the wand for whatever issue that might attach to you? And it remains, as my embedded sin remains for me. Embedded.

wmahcm

theological wrote: »

A thought and a thread.

It doesn't have to be one or the other, and can vary based on the situation.

Sometimes spiritual progress can't be made alone, but sometimes it's essential for spiritual progress that it is.

homer911

machaseh wrote: »

And is it also a big melting pot of LGBT diversity? I doubt it.

Oh boy, why does everything get dragged back to LGB.. "Big melting pot" - what are you expecting? Half the church to be gay? As it happens there are gay people in the church and they are as welcome as anyone. One of our youth workers was gay (still gay, went back to college)

I think its the atheists that are obsessed with this, not the Christians

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've commented elsewhere  on what I've found to be problematic in the church (where church is defined as a building you go to where x amount of the same Christians meet on at least Sundays)

The church is the gathered people of God and the local church is the local expression of God's gathered people in a community. It's how God has chosen to work in this world (Ephesians 1:10, 3:10, 4:15-16). The buildings that we meet in are not the church but buildings that facilitate the meeting of God's people.

Even if you do find it problematic you should decide to be a part of the solution instead of nitpicking from the outside.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wonder if meeting and being encouraged and built up can be accomplished otherwise. I mean, I'm looking at a lot of Greg Boyd sermons and they encourage and build up far more than anything I've heard in a number of churches these last years - even though the church "at his house" is an impractical distance away in a "be there in a physical sense every Sunday".

Similarily, reading the thoughts of a Christian writer can be considered a meeting up, a place to find encouragement.

I guess I would respond by saying you are not at an impractical distance to be at a church however. The gospel isn't about Greg Boyd it is about Jesus Christ. I'd hold the same criticism to those who would regard watching John Piper or any other preacher as an alternative to church. I think it is beneficial to be in the presence of people who can hold you to account in Christian context. This isn't something that Greg Boyd can offer you.

Also a fundamental point is that Christianity isn't just about consumption. It is about serving others. That requires people to be together in community with one another. So reading a Christian writer falls a long way short of what Jesus and the Apostles envisioned church to be like.

I genuinely think we have too low a view of church and I think we need to repent of this. Jesus is using His church to gather people to Himself. Either we join with Him in that work or we do not. Irrespective of whether or not we think the preaching standard is somehow beneath us.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Talk of how LGBT ought be dealt with. Very surface, bible-rule based think. Black/white. As if LGBT, assuming it is a result of a broken order, is a matter of waving a magic repentance wand.

Repentance is about attitude. Struggling with sin and acknowledging it is wrong and coming to Jesus for forgiveness is different from claiming that our sin is good and refusing to hear what God says on the issue.

We are all a work in progress (Philippians 1:6). You're right God perhaps will not give us victory in an area of sin for years but attitude matters.

machaseh

homer911 wrote: »

Oh boy, why does everything get dragged back to LGB.. "Big melting pot" - what are you expecting? Half the church to be gay? As it happens there are gay people in the church and they are as welcome as anyone. One of our youth workers was gay (still gay, went back to college)

I think its the atheists that are obsessed with this, not the Christians

I am not an Atheist. Yet I am LGBT. So this is important to me.

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

I make no comment other than to say building a doctrine on a verse or two is a dangerous thing. On this rock .. for example.




What does this mean? Say you have a homosexual (and sexuality is one of the more embedded things in a person) who in their 30's is saved?

What's supposed to happen them? Are they to 'about turn' based on a verse or two or three? Seems like slim pickings to live your life upon. Are they meant to interpret as you interpret? Ignore other 'progressive' interpretatIons?

Talk of how LGBT ought be dealt with. Very surface, bible-rule based think. Black/white. As if LGBT, assuming it is a result of a broken order, is a matter of waving a magic repentance wand.

"Without me you can do nothing". What happens if he doesn't wave the wand for whatever issue that might attach to you? And it remains, as my embedded sin remains for me. Embedded.

Thankfully I know what the "rock" reference refers to. I also know that God made mankind male and female, said it was very good and gave the command to replenish the earth.

Homosexuality is the opposite with God condemning it from Genesis on.
What I expect to happen and have seen happen is repentance and deliverance and a new life in Christ.
He came to set us free from sin. If you're happy not to be free then I wonder about the more "progressive" gospel you're hearing.
If we don't believe in the power of God to deliver from all sin, then we don't believe in the Biblical God.

machaseh

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

Thankfully I know what the "rock" reference refers to. I also know that God made mankind male and female, said it was very good and gave the command to replenish the earth.

Homosexuality is the opposite with God condemning it from Genesis on.
What I expect to happen and have seen happen is repentance and deliverance and a new life in Christ.
He came to set us free from sin. If you're happy not to be free then I wonder about the more "progressive" gospel you're hearing.
If we don't believe in the power of God to deliver from all sin, then we don't believe in the Biblical God.

And this my friends is why I am not going to church anymore.

uck51js9zml2yt

machaseh wrote: »

And this my friends is why I am not going to church anymore.

No, the reason is that people love darkness more than light and that the truth of God has been exchanged for a lie.
I've had a good friend who was homosexual. Was being the operative word. He would tell you of the day God met him and saved him and delivered him and how he walked in newness of life and fellowship with God. And how during the week he was the cleaner in a school and at weekends and school holidays he travelled the world telling people of God who loved them and gave Himself for them so as to give them a new life.

Homosexuality is no different from any other sin. Jesus treated it the same by dying on s cross, rising again and pouring out His Spirit so that all may come to repentance and life.

If you want to stay as you are, don't blame God. It's your choice.
Going to church didn't make you a Christian no more than McDonald's makes you a hamburger.

Mancomb Seepgood

machaseh wrote: »

And this my friends is why I am not going to church anymore.

Well,there are churches where you won't hear that sort of thing.The evidence of people's sexual orientation being changed is limited,to say the least,and even the likes of the president of Exodus International have conceded the point and repented of the damage and pain that organisation caused.

I think it is possible to be a Christian without a church,but people are by and large social creatures and there is no doubt that being in the right place surrounded by people who can support you has a lot to recommend it.It's always important to remember that religious leaders have feet of clay like the rest of us though,and there is no perfect church.

antiskeptic

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

Thankfully I know what the "rock" reference refers to. I also know that God made mankind male and female, said it was very good and gave the command to replenish the earth.

Homosexuality is the opposite with God condemning it from Genesis on.
What I expect to happen and have seen happen is repentance and deliverance and a new life in Christ.
He came to set us free from sin. If you're happy not to be free then I wonder about the more "progressive" gospel you're hearing.
If we don't believe in the power of God to deliver from all sin, then we don't believe in the Biblical God.

Believing that God has the power to deliver from all sin (whilst in this life) and believing that God will invoke that power in your case and in relation to your sin ..are two different things.

I don't believe God either promises to deliver or actually does deliver a person from their sin in this life.

When you say 'Biblical God' what you mean is your particular take on the Bible and from your experience of God. It neednot be an accurate take.

Has God delievered you from all sin? Has he delivered you from all habitual sin? And how would you know (given one of sin's techniques is to keep itself hidden so that you don't consider your behaviour sinful)

I think honosexuality is a product of fallenness. But I do have issue with the way the church majors on it. And seems to elevate it to sin uber sin.

I'm not sure Christ would view it in such black and white terms.

babi-hrse

There are plenty of gay priests they just don't own up to it.

NIMAN

smacl wrote: »

In my opinion, the decline of the church most probably has more to do with the fact that it was never popular but was previously inescapable.

I think the decline of the church is down to some of the self inflicted wounds.

The fact that they:

- facilitated child abusers and rapists
- treated women like dirt
- tell people who they can and can't love
- tell people they have no right to choose what happens to their body

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

Believing that God has the power to deliver from all sin (whilst in this life) and believing that God will invoke that power in your case and in relation to your sin ..are two different things.

I don't believe God either promises to deliver or actually does deliver a person from their sin in this life.

When you say 'Biblical God' what you mean is your particular take on the Bible and from your experience of God. It neednot be an accurate take.

Has God delievered you from all sin? Has he delivered you from all habitual sin? And how would you know (given one of sin's techniques is to keep itself hidden so that you don't consider your behaviour sinful)

I think honosexuality is a product of fallenness. But I do have issue with the way the church majors on it. And seems to elevate it to sin uber sin.

I'm not sure Christ would view it in such black and white terms.

So when Jesus told the woman to stop sinning He didn't really mean it or told her something that was impossible. Bit of a tease wasn't He?

We sin when we drawn by our lusts. 1 John also says "if we sin, we have an advocate"

God says be holy as He is.
Either it's possible or Christianity is a lie.
Am I perfect, no, but I press on knowing that He is able to keep me and present me faultless before the Father.

He says walk in a manner worthy of the calling. Why say it if it's not possible?

As for homosexuality, it's no different to lying, stealing or committing adultery. It's sin for which Christ died.
Paul asks the question "shall we continue in sin that grace should abound" The answer is no and that's my point. Scripture speaks of those who willfully continue in sin having known the truth. The operative word is willful continuance.

As for being a Christian and not being part of a community. Show me where in the new testament I can find it?

Scripture gives a clear command not to forsake assembling together and says again and again that we are reliant on each other. It's no different to the hand saying to the eye that it's not needed

antiskeptic

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

So when Jesus told the woman to stop sinning He didn't really mean it or told her something that was impossible. Bit of a tease wasn't He?

We sin when we drawn by our lusts. 1 John also says "if we sin, we have an advocate"

God says be holy as He is.
Either it's possible or Christianity is a lie.
Am I perfect, no, but I press on knowing that He is able to keep me and present me faultless before the Father.

He says walk in a manner worthy of the calling. Why say it if it's not possible?

Exhorting someone towards a higher path or higher goal says nothing at all about the possibility of them reaching the summit. There is merit in exhorting an 8 year old in his soccer playing: getting him to observe and copy his heros, to sketch out how it is he would play for Liverpool one day via the route of local clubs. There is no expectation that the kid will ever play for Liverpool. But he'll grow in and enjoy his life in soccer more.

Why did God tell the Israelites to chose life? He set before them the path: follow all his commands and decress. They couldn't do it.

Its one thing to be reckoned as righteous by virtue of being in Christ. Quite another to arrive at some sort of sinless perfection im real world. Christianity isn't a lie because we are set a goal to aim for that we cannot reach. It would be a lie if we were told we can reach that goal. But I don't suppose we are told that.

As for homosexuality, it's no different to lying, stealing or committing adultery. It's sin for which Christ died.
Paul asks the question "shall we continue in sin that grace should abound" The answer is no and that's my point. Scripture speaks of those who willfully continue in sin having known the truth. The operative word is willful continuance.

Paul is dealing here with the objection raised that would ask 'since we are saved irrevocably, does that mean we can sin as we like. Happy Days!" The answer is indeed no.

This is a different matter to the issue of someone who struggles with a sin. Saved people who thieve or commit adultery aren't going to Hell. Nor are saved people whosomeone who don't struggle - but who might compartmentalize or rationalise their sin as not sin in their particular case.

If you have a saved homosexual who simply can't conceive of God seeing their homosexual love as sinful then sinning they might well be. They may interpret the Bible in their 'favour'. In which case they are doing nothing other than any of us do: render an interpretation that makes sense to us.

As for being a Christian and not being part of a community. Show me where in the new testament I can find it?

Community needn't mean a typical church. I know and commune with Christians. Its just I find church as done takes away more than it adds.

If you get groupthink, for example, it can be very disillusioning - there is no space for exploration and development due to ideas be set. Say, for example I was to commune with folk who thought we could obtain to sinless perfection. That God would surely deliver us from our sin. Assume for a moment this isn't how it works, can you imagine the contortions that people would have to employ to explain why God hadn't delivered them from sin yet (assuming they'd admit it)?

My believing mam was convinced that God would heal her from the illness that would go on to kill her. The contortions she employed to deal with Gods failure on this score got in the way of our relationship to an extent. I couldn't go there with her, couldn't listen to the prosperity, name it and claim shysters she listened to.

Commune yes. But not where you find it damaging.

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

Exhorting someone towards a higher path or higher goal says nothing at all about the possibility of them reaching the summit. There is merit in exhorting an 8 year old in his soccer playing: getting him to observe and copy his heros, to sketch out how it is he would play for Liverpool one day via the route of local clubs. There is no expectation that the kid will ever play for Liverpool. But he'll grow in and enjoy his life in soccer more.

Why did God tell the Israelites to chose life in Deut 30? He set before them the path: follow all his commands and decress. They couldn't do it. And he knew they couldn't and wouldn't do it. Yet he exhorted them. He actually told them it was something they could chose to do. He says it is not too difficult.. and in the process lays out elements of salvation by faith - circumcision of the heart et al.

The law was given as a schoolteacher to lead. It is your inability to follow which informs. There was no expectation that folk would actually follow it
!

That's some sadistic god you believe in who tells someone something knowing they can't do it.

I'm not surprised people have no time for Christianity if it offers no hope of a new life here and now.

machaseh

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

No, the reason is that people love darkness more than light and that the truth of God has been exchanged for a lie.
I've had a good friend who was homosexual. Was being the operative word. He would tell you of the day God met him and saved him and delivered him and how he walked in newness of life and fellowship with God. And how during the week he was the cleaner in a school and at weekends and school holidays he travelled the world telling people of God who loved them and gave Himself for them so as to give them a new life.

Homosexuality is no different from any other sin. Jesus treated it the same by dying on s cross, rising again and pouring out His Spirit so that all may come to repentance and life.

If you want to stay as you are, don't blame God. It's your choice.
Going to church didn't make you a Christian no more than McDonald's makes you a hamburger.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

machaseh

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

Well,there are churches where you won't hear that sort of thing.The evidence of people's sexual orientation being changed is limited,to say the least,and even the likes of the president of Exodus International have conceded the point and repented of the damage and pain that organisation caused.

I think it is possible to be a Christian without a church,but people are by and large social creatures and there is no doubt that being in the right place surrounded by people who can support you has a lot to recommend it.It's always important to remember that religious leaders have feet of clay like the rest of us though,and there is no perfect church.

Yes but due to constant nagging by people such as your one I quoted there, I am kind of fed up with the church and honestly I dont think people like myself can be blamed for that.

antiskeptic

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

That's some sadistic god you believe in who tells someone something knowing they can't do it.



Follow the law to the letter and you will be right with God? I think that's a wonderful instruction to give that can't be followed.

I'm not surprised people have no time for Christianity if it offers no hope of a new life here and now.

Non sequitur. Not being able to follow the command can produce new life here and now.

I mean, what happens to a man who believes he has to follow the law and finds no way no how can he. Like Romans 7 man.

antiskeptic

@ Tatranska

antiskeptic wrote:

I don't believe God either promises to deliver or actually does deliver a person from their sin in this life.

The context is the goal of sinless perfection. I'm not saying God can't/doesn't deliver individuals from particular sin patterns. But it is not typical and it is not something ongoing such that we should expect continual deliverance from sin patterns in the approach to sinless perfection.


Are there any verses in the bible which support the idea of ongoing real life deliverance in a 'we can reach or obtain to sinless perfection' way?

(I'm not saying you can't build a doctrine without such verse - the Arminians hold that man is enabled by the Holy Spirit to chose for God, even though there are zero verses in the NT showing unbelieving man choosing for God. Reliance is placed on Deut 30 'chose life' and the assumption that because God says so we must infer man able to)

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

@ Tatranska



The context is the goal of sinless perfection. I'm not saying God can't/doesn't deliver individuals from particular sin patterns. But it is not typical and it is not something ongoing such that we should expect continual deliverance from sin patterns in the approach to sinless perfection.

It's important to define our categories carefully. In Christ, our sanctification is perfect and complete already - that is how God sees us because of what Jesus has done. In our experience, sanctification is incomplete but progressive - and we really can make progress that is pleasing to God (Kevin De Young has written a helpful book on this, The Hole in our Holiness).

There's a paradox here - the more we make progress in holiness, the more we realise the gulf that exists between us and a truly holy God. And we're never going to be perfect in this life, or anything close to it. But our holiness, while imperfect, is nonetheless real and pleasing to God.

antiskeptic

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

It's important to define our categories carefully. In Christ, our sanctification is perfect and complete already - that is how God sees us because of what Jesus has done. In our experience, sanctification is incomplete but progressive - and we really can make progress that is pleasing to God (Kevin De Young has written a helpful book on this, The Hole in our Holiness).

There's a paradox here - the more we make progress in holiness, the more we realise the gulf that exists between us and a truly holy God. And we're never going to be perfect in this life, or anything close to it. But our holiness, while imperfect, is nonetheless real and pleasing to God.

All true. But Tatranska's suggestion was that deliverence from all our sin (let's just focus on embedded, sticky, oft repeating sin) was a real prospect. Something not only to be sought for but obtainable.

I'm not speaking of our 'technical' position by virtue of our placement in Christ. I'm speaking of our actual day to day activity, awash with sin. As you say, the 'better' we get the bigger the gulf. Not for nothing enlightened creatures realising themselves to be the worst of sinners (eg: Paul, Bunyon)

I see no basis for tat's idea. Certainly not from a logic that sees exhortation as meaning: that which is exhorted can be obtained (to the degree Tatranska holds possible).

God/Jesus exhorted the impossible. Go and sin no more? Ha!

uck51js9zml2yt

machaseh wrote: »

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Sexual immorality is, fornication is. If it weren't scripture wouldnt have dealt with it.
If homosexuality was fine, then God wouldnt have destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, nor would he have said what he said in Romans about it.


But if thats what you want, no one is stopping you.

machaseh

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

Sexual immorality is, fornication is. If it weren't scripture wouldnt have dealt with it.
If homosexuality was fine, then God wouldnt have destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, nor would he have said what he said in Romans about it.


But if thats what you want, no one is stopping you.

Ok boomer.

hinault

theological wrote: »

A thought and a thread.

I was looking through Hebrews and particularly chapter 10 when the author tells us to keep going in the Christian faith.



For context in Hebrews we've just seen Jesus being spoken about as the perfect once for all sacrifice for sin and in the next few verses we've seen that falling away from Jesus is dangerous.

The solution for keeping going as a Christian is to stick with the people God has brought to you in the church to keep going. The author tells us to hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering in verse 23. He implores Christians to consider how to stir one another up to love and good works and says in verse 25 that Christians should not neglect to meet together so that we can encourage one another to keep going to the final day.

For Christians -

Is this how we see church?

Do you find opportunities to meet with other Christians during the week?

Why is it essential that Christians work in community?

Interesting OP.

Catholic Church requires all catholics to attend Sunday Mass. Primarily Mass is the sacrifice made by Jesus Christ. It is Jesus Christ present in mind, in body, in divinity and in spirit, at the moment of consecration of the Mass.

Therefore as individual catholics and as a congregation the importance of attending Mass is two fold : one being in the real presence of God, and two being in the real presence of God with fellow catholics simultaneously.

marieholmfan

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

You've obviously never read what God says a out homosexuality in Romans, or you have and don't believe it.
Christianity isn't "spiritual" only...its practical and there are certain characteristics and changes expected in a life who claims to be Christian shown in the Bible.
If those characteristics aren't there then it doesn't matter what a person says they are. It's just not true.

Romans merely says that homosexual acts (not identity) is dishonourable.

marieholmfan

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

Sexual immorality is, fornication is. If it weren't scripture wouldnt have dealt with it.
If homosexuality was fine, then God wouldnt have destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah, nor would he have said what he said in Romans about it.


But if thats what you want, no one is stopping you.

It's not for sodomy that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

And it's Paul who says homosexual acts are dishonourable not God.

theological

If possible it'd be super to keep the thread on the topic of doing Christianity alone and whether that is possible.

There are loads of threads on the Christianity forum about sexuality.

marieholmfan

theological wrote: »

If possible it'd be super to keep the thread on the topic of doing Christianity alone and whether that is possible.

There are loads of threads on the Christianity forum about sexuality.

Apologies!

Of course it is possible but why is it desirable?
To see other flawed people at mass or at service or whatever reminds us that God wants us all and it's easy to be saved.

It helps break the vanity of sloth.

ChrisJ84

antiskeptic wrote: »

All true. But Tatranska's suggestion was that deliverence from all our sin (let's just focus on embedded, sticky, oft repeating sin) was a real prospect. Something not only to be sought for but obtainable.

I'm not speaking of our 'technical' position by virtue of our placement in Christ. I'm speaking of our actual day to day activity, awash with sin. As you say, the 'better' we get the bigger the gulf. Not for nothing enlightened creatures realising themselves to be the worst of sinners (eg: Paul, Bunyon)

I see no basis for tat's idea. Certainly not from a logic that sees exhortation as meaning: that which is exhorted can be obtained (to the degree Tatranska holds possible).

God/Jesus exhorted the impossible. Go and sin no more? Ha!

I agree completely that we can never hope to be sin-free this side of glory. But yet, sin is no linger permissible nor inevitable for the Christian, so we should expect to see fruit as we go on.

I'll leave it to Tatranska to add to / clarify what he was saying, but I didn't understand him to be too far from what I've outlined.

And to get back to the OP, the only way we can hope to make progress like this is in community with other believers. Yes, church will always be messy, frustrating and imperfect, but we simply aren't given the option to check out and go it alone.

uck51js9zml2yt

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I agree completely that we can never hope to be sin-free this side of glory. But yet, sin is no linger permissible nor inevitable for the Christian, so we should expect to see fruit as we go on.

I'll leave it to Tatranska to add to / clarify what he was saying, but I didn't understand him to be too far from what I've outlined.

And to get back to the OP, the only way we can hope to make progress like this is in community with other believers. Yes, church will always be messy, frustrating and imperfect, but we simply aren't given the option to check out and go it alone.

God expects those who name His Name to depart from iniquity to quote the KJV.
He also expects us to be holy as He is but he says that IF we sin we have an advocate.

By saying if, he's saying it shouldn't be the norm. Why else use the word "if".

antiskeptic

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

God expects those who name His Name to depart from iniquity to quote the KJV.
He also expects us to be holy as He is but he says that IF we sin we have an advocate.

By saying if, he's saying it shouldn't be the norm. Why else use the word "if".

"You should be on spiritual meat but you are still on milk" Paul says, taking folk to task.

A person tending towards the milk end of the spectrum is a like a learner driver. A driving instructor says "if you make a mistake I'll put you right". There will be shed loads of mistakes. Mistakes will be the norm.

The use of 'if' says nothing about expections as to frequency of occurrance. And cannot be used in support of a doctrine of 'sinless perfection'. Whether expectation set or it obtainable (or even it near obtainable).

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

"You should be on spiritual meat but you are still on milk" Paul says, taking folk to task.

A person tending towards the milk end of the spectrum is a like a learner driver. A driving instructor says "if you make a mistake I'll put you right". There will be shed loads of mistakes. Mistakes will be the norm.

The use of 'if' says nothing about expections as to frequency of occurrance. And cannot be used in support of a doctrine of 'sinless perfection'. Whether expectation set or it obtainable (or even it near obtainable).

I don't believe in sinless perfection and can't find anything in scripture to support it.
What I do find is Gods command to His Church to be holy and to walk in a manner worthy of Him who called us.
As I said, it's a sadistic God who says be holy as He is if we can't be.

ChrisJ84

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

I don't believe in sinless perfection and can't find anything in scripture to support it.
What I do find is Gods command to His Church to be holy and to walk in a manner worthy of Him who called us.
As I said, it's a sadistic God who says be holy as He is if we can't be.

I think you're right, if our new birth doesn't make any difference in our lives then you'd have to ask in what sense God's power is at work. Most helpful way I've heard this put is that our sincere obedience as Christians, while imperfect, is nonetheless real and pleasing to God.

antiskeptic

Emerson Ambitious Speedway wrote: »

I don't believe in sinless perfection..

As I said, it's a sadistic God who says be holy as He is if we can't be.

We will be. In glory and not before.

We can't achieve sinless perfection in this life, you agree. Yet you also say we can be holy as he is holy (because, we agree, God isn't sadistic)

Paradox?? We can't be sinlessly perfect, but we can be as holy as he (aka sinlessly perfect) because he instructs us to be.

Could you explain?

uck51js9zml2yt

antiskeptic wrote: »

We will be. In glory and not before.

We can't achieve sinless perfection in this life, you agree. Yet you also say we can be holy as he is holy (because, we agree, God isn't sadistic)

Paradox?? We can't be sinlessly perfect, but we can be as holy as he (aka sinlessly perfect) because he instructs us to be.

Could you explain?

Scripture says that if we walk in the spirit we won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Problem is, we don't walk as we should.

So you're saying,God tells us to be holy knowing we can't possibly be in this life. Sadism at its best!

antiskeptic

@ Chris.

The 'weight of scripture' would, I agree, say man cannot chose God. That his will is bent away from God.

There are comparatively few elements of scripture which can be taken to suggest God choses man.

The Reformed position appears to conclude that since man cannot chose God, therefore God must chose man.

-


A fisherman attempts to catch every fish in the sea. Does this mean every fish will be caught? Not necessarily, for fish can eacape the attempt.

Whilst no fish wills being caught, some fight sufficient to escape the attempt. They will it not. And so remain in the sea whilst others are caught, against their will and die.

God not choosing man (rather, he attempts to catch all men) man not choosing God doesn't confound scripture. It accommodates the 'total depravity' idea and accommodates the weight of scripture which indicates God after all men, rather than an elect.

P.S. this fisherman analogy isn't my own idea!

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

@ Chris.

The 'weight of scripture' would, I agree, say man cannot chose God. That his will is bent away from God.

There are comparatively few elements of scripture which can be taken to suggest God choses man.

The Reformed position appears to conclude that since man cannot chose God, therefore God must chose man.

-


A fisherman attempts to catch every fish in the sea. Does this mean every fish will be caught? Not necessarily, for fish can eacape the attempt.

Whilst no fish wills being caught, some fight sufficient to escape the attempt. They will it not. And so remain in the sea whilst others are caught, against their will and die.

God not choosing man (rather, he attempts to catch all men) man not choosing God.

P.S. this fisherman analogy isn't my own idea

I think your thinking requires a watering down of God's sovereignty to work.

I think this is probably one for the other thread.

This thread is more on the discussion can Christianity be done alone. The answer Scripturally seems to be an emphatic no.

The work of sanctification is a long term work but God is making us more like Christ daily even if the completed work isn't seen in our lifetime (Philippians 1:6)

antiskeptic

theological wrote: »

I think your thinking requires a watering down of God's sovereignty to work.

I think this is probably one for the other thread.

Indeed. That's what I'll do.

I don't see how God's sovereignty is watered down. Unless your starting position is that sovereignty means God choses man.

As I say, the Reformed view is scripturally strong on the total depravity aspect. And very weak on the God choses who to save aspect. And the sovereignty element rests on this latter element.

This thread is more on the discussion can Christianity be done alone. The answer Scripturally seems to be an emphatic no.

Which is no support at all for the model of church which has evolved.

The work of sanctification is a long term work but God is making us more like Christ daily even if the completed work isn't seen in our lifetime (Philippians 1:6)

So we cannot be holy as he is holy in our lifetime? Or can we be? For if we can be, we would see the completed work in our lifetime.

Could you clarify which it is?

theological

antiskeptic wrote: »

So we cannot be holy as he is holy in our lifetime? Or can we be? For if we can be, we would see the completed work in our lifetime.

Could you clarify which it is?

I don't need to clarify beyond what Scripture says.

1 John 3:1-3 wrote:

See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

Completion will happen at the day of the Lord. That does not mean we should rejoice in our sin in the meantime.