The Halloween Controversy

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The Lutherans and Calvinists are very staunch in their sola fide, or "faith alone", theology, at least the classical ones. Teaching the idea that works could have anything to do with saving anybody would draw their relentless fire, even though, as you mentioned, it is plainly stated to be so by both John the Evangelist and the Apostle James...even Paul throws in a few words on it.

Thanks Masonic Light. I understand (Ephesians 2:8-9) "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast". This parallels nicely with what Jesus says in John 3:16 so the criteria for being saved is set. The question then becomes, what happens to those who haven't the faith? I think that's where Revelation comes into play in judgement according to works. I don't see a conflict between faith and works. Rather a kind of cooperation. Faith as the foundation, works as building upon it. If there is no faith, then all that can be judged is works from what I see, though that judgement sounds harsh because we do many, many works for the wrong reasons.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
There are some Calvinists I have great respect for, especially Spurgeon, Knox, and Whitefield, but there's no way I could ever accept their T.U.L.I.P. theology.

I'm new to this. I've heard the names before but not the acronym or supporting contexts. Any education is appreciated though I don't wish to bore you by reciting something already written.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I don't think you should worry about offending anyone...I read all of your recent posts there, and didn't see anything offensive. I don't think you'd do such a thing anyway, at least not on purpose.

Thank you, it does mean a lot. Though, I didn't like bully's as a kid and have no wish to appear one (whether true or not) as an adult.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
As for "girls stuff" and "boy stuff", though, even though this is off topic, I'm curious: does your church have a men's group? A ladies group? I've been attending a church recently, which I'm considering joining. I've been participating in the men's group there, and my wife in the ladies group. My son is participating in the teens group, and my daughter in the kids group. Do you believe that the church should not form such groups, or do you have a different opinion if the group in question is a church rather than a civic or fraternal organization?

Oooh! You're gonna like this answer I'm sure. Currently there are 3 things preventing me from joining the church I regularly attend. This is hotspot # 2. The church's approach to having a separated men's and women's group parallel your reasons why Masonry has a men's group separate from women's very nicely. I have put the church "on the stand" in the same manner I've put this point of Masonry "on the stand". Just to let you know that I'm not being exclusive or selective to Masons . Hopefully that gives some kind of comfort that it's not personal, but structural or ideological. Let's go into why:

The Bible has much to say about men and woman, their relationship of each other and the dynamics of their freedoms. (Yes, the Bible does give each person individual dignity male or female, slave or master, Jew or Gentile - Galatians 3:28). First off, a lot of us may recall in Genesis where God lets us know "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) which matches with perfection with what Jesus says here, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh'. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Young teens as individuals may be more comfortable talking about their problems in the same gender group. Even single adults likewise, but according to the Book I'm reading, I see no just cause for a man and a woman who are married to hold separate meeting, counsel, study, or celebration.


[edit on 9-11-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God


Thanks Masonic Light. I understand (Ephesians 2:8-9) "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, so that no one can boast". This parallels nicely with what Jesus says in John 3:16 so the criteria for being saved is set. The question then becomes, what happens to those who haven't the faith? I think that's where Revelation comes into play in judgement according to works. I don't see a conflict between faith and works. Rather a kind of cooperation. Faith as the foundation, works as building upon it. If there is no faith, then all that can be judged is works from what I see, though that judgement sounds harsh because we do many, many works for the wrong reasons.

I think the important thing here is the context in which the word "works" is used in the Scriptures. The Apostle Paul tends to use the word in reference to the Mosaic laws, which indeed only condemn us instead of saving us. However, the word is used in a different context by James and John. When they speak of "works", they don't speak of "the works of the law", but the way we live our lives. This is why I say that the Bible does not contradict itself concerning works, and is why I admonish Luther for wanting to take the Epistle of James out of the Bible, which he called "an epistle of straw".

I'm new to this. I've heard the names before but not the acronym or supporting contexts. Any education is appreciated though I don't wish to bore you by reciting something already written.

John Knox was the founder of the Presbyterian Church, Charles H. Spurgeon was a Reformed baptist minister in England, and George Whitefield was a Presbyterian evangelist in colonial America who was very close friends with both John Wesley and Benjamin Franklin (and both of whom he completely disagreed with over theology). Knox, Spurgeon, and Whitefield were all very staunch Calvinists.

The acronym T.U.L.I.P. represents the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism", which are as follows:

1. Total depravity
2. Unconditional election
3. Limited atonement
4. Irresistable grace
3. Perseverance of the saints

In a nutshell, the five points of Calvinist theology can be summed up as follows:

1. Man is born totally depraved, due to his sinful nature. As such, he is a slave to sin, and cannot choose that which is good.

2. Since man cannot choose good, God has elected that some people will be saved. Thus God decides who will receive salvation, instead of man deciding to accept God.

3. Christ's atonement is "limited", i.e., He died only for the elect. He did not die for those who would not be saved because this would mean that Christ died in vain.

4. God's grace is "irrestitable", i.e., those whom God has elected to be saved cannot resist Him, and therefore will surrender to God's will.

5. The final perseverance of the saints, or "eternal security", states that once a person is saved, he cannot lose his salvation. This is because it was the will of God that the person be saved, and no one can go against the will of God.

As we can see, this is indeed a logical argument. However, if one of the premisses can be shown to be false, then the conclusion must be conceded, regardless of its logical form. It is my position that Calvinist Point No. 1, "Total Depravity", is false. Therefore the other four points do not hold up.

The Bible has much to say about men and woman, their relationship of each other and the dynamics of their freedoms. (Yes, the Bible does give each person individual dignity male or female, slave or master, Jew or Gentile - Galatians 3:28). First off, a lot of us may recall in Genesis where God lets us know "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) which matches with perfection with what Jesus says here, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh'. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

This is true, but I would argue that this does not refer to church study and activity groups or fraternal orders. Rather, it concerns the mystery of matrimony. If I go to my men's church group, or to the Lodge, and my wife goes to the ladies church group, or her scrapbooking club, we are not "separated" in th biblical sense. Sure, we are temporarily separated physically, but I don't think that's what God had in mind. If it was, we'd never even be able to go to work, because we'd be physically separated.

I think what the Bible is saying here concerns divorce, which is grievous to God, who has joined a man and woman to be of one flesh.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Masonic Light]

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I think the important thing here is the context in which the word "works" is used in the Scriptures. The Apostle Paul tends to use the word in reference to the Mosaic laws, which indeed only condemn us instead of saving us. However, the word is used in a different context by James and John. When they speak of "works", they don't speak of "the works of the law", but the way we live our lives. This is why I say that the Bible does not contradict itself concerning works, and is why I admonish Luther for wanting to take the Epistle of James out of the Bible, which he called "an epistle of straw".

This is interesting, thank you. Much for me to chew on. Now I need to spend some time seeing how this works (no pun intended). What you're saying though makes a lot of sense. I'd not heard of Luther's calling the "epistle of straw" though I know why if there's confusion about whether works can earn you into heaven or not. The way you've put it here clears that up I think, and find James to be a very helpful book in understanding our responsibilty as Christians.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
In a nutshell, the five points of Calvinist theology can be summed up as follows:

1. Man is born totally depraved, due to his sinful nature. As such, he is a slave to sin, and cannot choose that which is good.

I'd say "greatly less inclined to do good", but cannot sounds like a very strong word, being absolute. My opinion here. I'd have to see the text they're using to support.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
2. Since man cannot choose good, God has elected that some people will be saved. Thus God decides who will receive salvation, instead of man deciding to accept God.

As if "faith vs. works" isn't confusing enough, we have to pin down who chose who? For those who are married, did you choose your spouse or did your spouse choose you? Just something to think about.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
3. Christ's atonement is "limited", i.e., He died only for the elect. He did not die for those who would not be saved because this would mean that Christ died in vain.

This is a product of point #2. It looks agreeable that if you do not accept/trust/believe in Christ doing this than you're not "born again" as I gather from what he says in John (and the other gospels).

Originally posted by Masonic Light
4. God's grace is "irrestitable", i.e., those whom God has elected to be saved cannot resist Him, and therefore will surrender to God's will.

Another expansion pack to point #2. I'm not sure why this is important to salvation.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
5. The final perseverance of the saints, or "eternal security", states that once a person is saved, he cannot lose his salvation. This is because it was the will of God that the person be saved, and no one can go against the will of God.

I wonder if the author of Hebrews 6:4 felt that no-one could fall away.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
As we can see, this is indeed a logical argument. However, if one of the premisses can be shown to be false, then the conclusion must be conceded, regardless of its logical form. It is my position that Calvinist Point No. 1, "Total Depravity", is false. Therefore the other four points do not hold up.

That's pretty blanketing, is it not? I'm interested to know why you believe # 1 to be false please. This is all new material to me.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
This is true, but I would argue that this does not refer to church study and activity groups or fraternal orders. Rather, it concerns the mystery of matrimony. If I go to my men's church group, or to the Lodge, and my wife goes to the ladies church group, or her scrapbooking club, we are not "separated" in th biblical sense. Sure, we are temporarily separated physically, but I don't think that's what God had in mind. If it was, we'd never even be able to go to work, because we'd be physically separated.

In these Bible studies, do people discuss matters of the heart? Trials and successes? Sins and blessings? Why engage in these things without your spiritual partner? Why deprive the love of your life a window to your soul?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I think what the Bible is saying here concerns divorce, which is grievous to God, who has joined a man and woman to be of one flesh.

I agree that's the end result, yes. The division though can very well start with the boy and his crew or the girl and her click. See where I'm going with this?

"How come you'd rather be out with the girls/boys instead of home with me?"

"Why do you go out to a nice dinner with them but not take me out?"

"What do you say to them that you can't say to me?"

"Do you talk about me with them? What do you tell them?"

"Why do you get to go out while I have to stay home with our son(s)/daughter(s)?"

"Why do you have your own 'group of friends'?"

etc., etc., etc.

Maybe this tune strikes a chord for some of you. These are legitimate questions to which we typically don't have legitimate answers.

A house divided cannot stand, and so the division begins...

[edit on 9-11-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God




I'd say "greatly less inclined to do good", but cannot sounds like a very strong word, being absolute. My opinion here. I'd have to see the text they're using to support.

The idea here is that men are totally depraved, "totally" being the keyword. If one is in complete bondage to sin, then he can do nothing but sin, say our Calvinist friends. Therefore, he "cannot do good". I will explain my reasons for disbelieving this below.

That's pretty blanketing, is it not? I'm interested to know why you believe # 1 to be false please. This is all new material to me.

Obviously, people have sinful natures. I don't think many would argue with that, not even the atheists.

However, saying mankind is "totally depraved" is not the same thing as saying we have a sinful nature. Think about Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Charles Manson. Then think about Mother Theresa, Mohandes Gandhi, and St. Francis of Assisi. All six had sinful natures, but I would argue that the first three indeed are totally depraved, while the latter three are not.

We all have choices to make. The Calvinist denies the existence of free will, but in reality, when we commit evil, we do so from our own choice. We aren't forced to. It is true that our sinful natures tug at us, but the nature of good given to us by God tugs in the opposite direction. We are left with a choice, and such a choice is our own responsibility to make.

If the doctrine of total depravity is a false one, which I contend it is, then the other 4 Points of Calvinism must also be false; if the foundation crumbles, then the entire house will fall.

The Second Point, unconditional election, seems to be refuted by the Apostle Peter, who says that God wills that everyone be saved, and that this is the reason He is patient and longsuffering toward us.

The Third Point says that Christ died only for the elect. Yet, John 3:16 says that Christ died because God so loved the world.

The Fourth Point says that no one can resist God's grace. For this to be true, unconditional election would have to be true; yet the Bible says that God offers salvation to everyone.

Finally, if eternal security is true, then the former four points must be true. The "Free Will Baptists" believe in eternal security, but they also believe in free will, and reject the first four points of Calvinism. I have nothing against the Free Will Baptists, but I don't understand how they can defend eternal security in a logical manner without using the first four points of Reformed theology.

Here's a link that compares Arminianism (Anglicanism, Methodism, and Wesleyanism) to Calvinism (Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist).

www.the-highway.com...

However, it is written from a Calvinist perspective.

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Masonic Light]

For an Arminian perspective, see:

www.evangelicaloutreach.org...

Hey Masonic Light, I think this section of ATS would make a nice home for you as well (not just Secret Societies). Would you like to stay for a cup of coffee? Take your shoes off and put 'em up on the table a while.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The idea here is that men are totally depraved, "totally" being the keyword. If one is in complete bondage to sin, then he can do nothing but sin, say our Calvinist friends. Therefore, he "cannot do good". I will explain my reasons for disbelieving this below.

Obviously, people have sinful natures. I don't think many would argue with that, not even the atheists.

However, saying mankind is "totally depraved" is not the same thing as saying we have a sinful nature. Think about Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Charles Manson. Then think about Mother Theresa, Mohandes Gandhi, and St. Francis of Assisi. All six had sinful natures, but I would argue that the first three indeed are totally depraved, while the latter three are not.

We all have choices to make. The Calvinist denies the existence of free will, but in reality, when we commit evil, we do so from our own choice. We aren't forced to. It is true that our sinful natures tug at us, but the nature of good given to us by God tugs in the opposite direction. We are left with a choice, and such a choice is our own responsibility to make.

Hm, interesting. Thanks for this perspective.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
If the doctrine of total depravity is a false one, which I contend it is, then the other 4 Points of Calvinism must also be false; if the foundation crumbles, then the entire house will fall.

I don't see the same dependency of point #1 with the other 4. #2 seems to be a foundation or precursor of the others, but think this one stands on it's own. Just how I see it though. I don't think anyone believes all of Calvinism is inerrant, if so, they'd have to believe that there is "another book" of the Bible and that treads on muchly dangerous territory I think.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The Second Point, unconditional election, seems to be refuted by the Apostle Peter, who says that God wills that everyone be saved, and that this is the reason He is patient and longsuffering toward us.

The Third Point says that Christ died only for the elect. Yet, John 3:16 says that Christ died because God so loved the world.

Let's not forget the rest of that sentence though, "...that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life". That's the condition laid down and the foundation of trust/faith/belief. This implies to me that God has given us the free-will to come to Him or continue to ignore Him. I could be wrong. As I said in the marriage example, who chooses who? I'd say the couple chose each other. That's how a relationship starts. Otherwise it's called "stalking" (kidding friends).

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The Fourth Point says that no one can resist God's grace. For this to be true, unconditional election would have to be true; yet the Bible says that God offers salvation to everyone.

Yeah, I think the offer is there to everyone and "...that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life". (John 3:16)

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Finally, if eternal security is true, then the former four points must be true. The "Free Will Baptists" believe in eternal security, but they also believe in free will, and reject the first four points of Calvinism. I have nothing against the Free Will Baptists, but I don't understand how they can defend eternal security in a logical manner without using the first four points of Reformed theology.

Hm... I attended a Baptist church for about a year. I've seen Baptists give Presbyterians the nod, "see you in heaven" and Presbyterians give Baptists the nod, "see you in heaven", so I'm not sure what the point of doctrine is.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Here's a link that compares Arminianism (Anglicanism, Methodism, and Wesleyanism) to Calvinism (Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist).

www.the-highway.com...

However, it is written from a Calvinist perspective.

Thanks for the education! People have asked me what I am, I say Christian. They get flustered and say, "Well what denomination?". I say, "I'm a Protepresbymethobaptist" and watch their head spin for a moment before they throw their arms up and walk away.

Kick it DJ Paul, in hizzouse with 1 Corinthians 1:10:

I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

...and the people in da house say "Aaaaahhhmen"


[edit on 9-11-2005 by saint4God]

This is so interesting. I didn't realize how far apart methodists and presbyterians were in their doctrine. Explains alot of things

As far as the Halloween controversy goes, I can see Saint's point, though I don't know if I feel it is enough of a threat to stop celebrating it.

Originally posted by saint4God


I don't see the same dependency of point #1 with the other 4.

Ah, but I recommend you to take a look here:

www.evangelicaloutreach.org...

The Calvinists concede that each point must stand or fall on the others. We only require irresistable grace and unconditional election if and only if we are totally depraved. Limited atonement is only true if and only if unconditional election is true. Eternal security can only be logically demonstrated through unconditional election and irresistable grace.

I don't think anyone believes all of Calvinism is inerrant, if so, they'd have to believe that there is "another book" of the Bible and that treads on muchly dangerous territory I think.

The Calvinist believes that Calvinism is biblical Christianity, and is therefore inerrant. The Hyper-Calvinists believe that one must accept the Five Points of Calvinism to be saved.

Let's not forget the rest of that sentence though, "...that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life". That's the condition laid down and the foundation of trust/faith/belief.

That is correct, and implies conditional salvation, rather than unconditional election.

This implies to me that God has given us the free-will to come to Him or continue to ignore Him. I could be wrong.

But you're not. The idea of unconditional election is a foreign one to both the scriptures and church traditions.

Hm... I attended a Baptist church for about a year. I've seen Baptists give Presbyterians the nod, "see you in heaven" and Presbyterians give Baptists the nod, "see you in heaven", so I'm not sure what the point of doctrine is.

There is no real difference between the theology of the Presbyterian and the Reformed Baptist: both are Calvinists. The only practical difference is that Presbyterians baptize infants, while Baptists do not; and Baptists generally believe in baptism by immersion only, whereas the Presbyterians practice pouring.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Ah, but I recommend you to take a look here:

www.evangelicaloutreach.org...

Doh! You caught me. I forgot to go back and look at the link. I did intend to though, really .

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The Calvinists concede that each point must stand or fall on the others. We only require irresistable grace and unconditional election if and only if we are totally depraved. Limited atonement is only true if and only if unconditional election is true. Eternal security can only be logically demonstrated through unconditional election and irresistable grace.

Yeah, after reading that, it looks like they done shot themselves in the foot with the "it's all or nothing!" remark. Remarkable that one can put so much faith into it without providing Biblical support...or maybe the do have Biblical support and I've yet to see it. I'm sure that's the case.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The Calvinist believes that Calvinism is biblical Christianity, and is therefore inerrant. The Hyper-Calvinists believe that one must accept the Five Points of Calvinism to be saved.

Hyper-Calvinist? Does that mean they've had too much sugar in their espresso? Interesting how anyone can delete John 3:16 criteria...and Romans 6:23...and Ephesians 2:8-9...and 1 John 3:13...and Acts 16:31...and and and...

Originally posted by Masonic Light
That is correct, and implies conditional salvation, rather than unconditional election.

Give me a few days and I'll fully comprehend this sentence.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

This implies to me that God has given us the free-will to come to Him or continue to ignore Him. I could be wrong.

But you're not. The idea of unconditional election is a foreign one to both the scriptures and church traditions.

Oh good, glad I'm not alone here

Originally posted by Masonic Light
There is no real difference between the theology of the Presbyterian and the Reformed Baptist: both are Calvinists. The only practical difference is that Presbyterians baptize infants, while Baptists do not; and Baptists generally believe in baptism by immersion only, whereas the Presbyterians practice pouring.

I noticed that too. Just to clarify, the baptism means 2 different things too. In the Presbytery, it's a commitment of the parents and church to raise the child in a loving Christian home. In the Baptist church it's announcing the faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Presbyterians call that later on acceptance - "confirmation" or "re-dedication" (I can't recall off the top right now).

To-may-to, to-mah-to. Do you say "Jesus" or "Yeshua"?

I'm learning a lot here & appreciate the education . I still have much to learn from you sir. *chinese bow*

[edit on 9-11-2005 by saint4God]

it's rededication. i was baptised as a baby in a southern baptist church,then given the choice to rededicate myself in the presbyterian church......which i declined to do.

Originally posted by psychosgirl
it's rededication. i was baptised as a baby in a southern baptist church,then given the choice to rededicate myself in the presbyterian church......which i declined to do.

Excellent! Thanks for clearing that up for me. No go on the prebytery eh? I've been flipping in my seat as of late. Here's why:

They've helped put me in a closer touch with God that I had been missing for many, many years

The message from the pulpit is solid and right on

They've helped me with so much growth and given me so many tools within the last year, it would've taken decades for me to acquire them on my own

They have an awesome leadership team (not just one good leader)

I love the people. I really do

The band rocks!

Hesi....tations:

The 5 points of Calvinism thing is very...unclear to me

I don't think married people should be in separate Bible studies

I don't see why women aren't allowed to preach or become elders (yes, I've read Timothy and Titus, but I've also read Galatians and Judges )

The church in making a decision believes in being unified in word and action. I agree it should be unified in action, but if I disagree with something, I'd like to be able to say I disagree when someone asks my opinion.

I don't tithe enough. Yes, that's my fault but I'm working up to it. If I'm going to be a member, I want to say I'm a responsible one

I feel stuck in the middle. Fortunately I have a friend on staff who I argue...er...discuss these things with now and then.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God


Excellent! Thanks for clearing that up for me. No go on the prebytery eh? I've been flipping in my seat as of late. Here's why:

Ah, you're going to a Presbyterian Church? I thought you meant you were in a Baptist one.

The band rocks!

Yikes. One of the main things that turns me off about many churches is their use of modern music. I'm attending an Anglican Church now, and will probably officially join soon. The Church has an excellent chamber orchestra, which plays sacred music by Mozart, Haydn, Handel, etc.

The 5 points of Calvinism thing is very...unclear to me

Calvinism relies almost completely upon Paul, and specifically, on Romans Chapter 9. A brief review of Romans 9 may help you in understanding, but the problem here that calvinists tend to ignore is that Romans 9 doesn't exist in isolation, but is part of a whole other body of work which as a whole does not support Calvinistic doctrine.

I don't think married people should be in separate Bible studies

Usually, Sunday School is attended by married couples. Men's groups and women's groups in the church are often different. For example, my men's group plays basketball on Thursdays and softball on Saturdays.

I don't see why women aren't allowed to preach or become elders (yes, I've read Timothy and Titus, but I've also read Galatians and Judges

)

This is a controversy still very much alive. The Apostle Paul forbids women to take positions of authority in the Church. The Anglican Communion ordains women into the priesthood, but I personally disagree with this practice. I'm not chauvinistic, but I believe the Holy Orders were for men only, as did the Apostle. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with a female priest.

The church in making a decision believes in being unified in word and action. I agree it should be unified in action, but if I disagree with something, I'd like to be able to say I disagree when someone asks my opinion.

Exactly; which is why I could never be a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, even though I have great admiration for the beauty of their Liturgies.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Ah, you're going to a Presbyterian Church? I thought you meant you were in a Baptist one.

Well, I went to a Baptist one for about a year. The only reason for me leaving was because the teacher I liked left and didn't feel the replacement was adequate. I visit my mother's now and then and it's a nice, small traditional one. Very peaceful.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Yikes. One of the main things that turns me off about many churches is their use of modern music. I'm attending an Anglican Church now, and will probably officially join soon. The Church has an excellent chamber orchestra, which plays sacred music by Mozart, Haydn, Handel, etc.

Sounds good to me. I'm a young whipper-snapper at heart and tend to ride the tides of change. To each their own though, that baptist church I mentioned above has an organ, a very talented organist and the congregation. That's it! I still like it, but I favor the blastin' electric guitar, bass, and drums. Congratulations on considering joining! I think it's a special thing when people find a church they feel entirely at home with

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Calvinism relies almost completely upon Paul, and specifically, on Romans Chapter 9. A brief review of Romans 9 may help you in understanding, but the problem here that calvinists tend to ignore is that Romans 9 doesn't exist in isolation, but is part of a whole other body of work which as a whole does not support Calvinistic doctrine.

Hmm... don't know what to say, other than it's a lot of weight to bear on one chapter.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Usually, Sunday School is attended by married couples. Men's groups and women's groups in the church are often different. For example, my men's group plays basketball on Thursdays and softball on Saturdays.

Ya, Sunday School includes both. But in addition they have a separated Mens and Womens Bible studies respectively.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
This is a controversy still very much alive. The Apostle Paul forbids women to take positions of authority in the Church.

In Corinthians, that's how he solved the problem of gossip and dissention in the his letter to the church of Corinth. In Galatians he speaks of the body of Christ not knowing a difference between Jew or Gentile, man or woman, or slave and master. Also, Deborah in Judges did a fine job of being a prophet and priestess, ushering 40 years of peace. I think that's something that should be recognized. God chose her. Just as God chose Mary. Who are we to say God cannot choose who He wants?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The Anglican Communion ordains women into the priesthood, but I personally disagree with this practice. I'm not chauvinistic, but I believe the Holy Orders were for men only, as did the Apostle. I just wouldn't feel comfortable with a female priest.

Why?

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Exactly; which is why I could never be a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, even though I have great admiration for the beauty of their Liturgies.

This is a corporate problem, not really Biblical related. Some companies allow you to write to the CEO, others throw your letters in the trash. In this case, my disagreement with them isn't Biblically related.

let me make myself clear...just to let all you other ATSers get a better feel for who I am. I grew up in a southern baptist family(one which celebrated halloween..),my mother has always been music director of some church or another,i went to catholic grade school.....I have studied christianity,catholicism,satanism,etc,etc.....i believe that Jesus was real...but I am not an organized Christian. his message is what I live. I care for the disabled,the poor,and the underprivilaged. what disturbs me is the "christians" who don't practice Jesus' teachings. Jesus did not judge,he loved all, he healed,and did whatever he could to get people to love one another no matter what......if you doubt read the story of the woman by the well or the story of the lepers. You cannot call yourself a follower of Christ if you do not follow his teachings.....tolerance,love,kindness,and on and on. Jesus DID not use scare tactics to preach his message...he used kindness........if anyone disagrees i DARE you to prove me wrong. find a passage in the Bible where Christ was wrathful and mean in spreading his message.

Psychogirl, I don't think anyone would disagree with you. My husband grew up in a family that is very religious. My family went to church and my Mothear was wonderful in the way she raised us in a loving and Godly manner. I wouldn't have categorized us as religious though

Hubby says it isn't God he has a problem with but his followers. I find that such a cop out. It is a funny saying, but still a cop out. You shouldn't judge God on those that do a crappy job of following him.

It is between you and him. Then, you ought to show what Christianity is by exactly what you described. Being kind, helping, following the commandments. Heck, if the whole world did that, we would all live in Utopia.

Worry about being the best you you can be. Show people the love you know and then don't worry about those that are NOT what they say they are. That is their problem and can only be overcome by goodness

I don't know if anyone else saw Trading Spouses, with that lunatic "God Warrior" chick. Now, that was one BAD example of a Christian. Those that hate Christians will happily jump up and say "See, they are all like that!!"

I do not celebrate Halloween, as it is not part of my culture as a Native American. The American version of Halloween I understand to be a commercial bastardization of traditional, peaceful Celtic beliefs (Samhain?) and harvest festival practices.

I do agree with the Xtians on here that the images of horror and death such as were promoted by the Jordanian producer of the movie 'Halloween' (who passed away this week) should be censored, the promoters tried in a court of law and executed by the State.

How modern culture transformed the harvest of pumpkins and preparation for a cold winter into homicidal brainwashing is beyond me.

Originally posted by jupiter869

Originally posted by wetwarez


The thing that irritates me the most about this, is that "Christians" still allow the portrayal of an "Easter Bunny" during the Easter holiday. I'd think that that form of Animism would go against their belief structure.

But, just as there's no consistency in the bible, I guess there is none in the fundamentalist belief either.

[edit on 10-18-2005 by wetwarez]

The irony of it all is that Christianity is FILLED with pagan rituals (including Easter, as you mentioned). Why condemn one if you're going to advocate another?

You are right Christianity after Constantine was FILLED w/ pagan rituals. That would be why the Jewish Feasts...the only holidays in the bible should be celebrated...
journals.aol.com...
Those are also the only holidays YAHSHUA (aka Jesus) kept!

Ahh, the annual bashing of Halloween. The time of year when adults take an innocent holiday of candy and fun for children and turn it into an excuse to bicker. *sigh*

And I had almost forgotten to buy the boys' costumes. Perhaps the youngest can be a monkey... I wonder what the oldest wants to be.

reply to post by saint4God


Christmas was chosen on that day because no one actually knew when Christ was born. It could have been any day of the year.

Easter is located always near Passover, because that was when Christ died. before you write something, please make sure you RESEARCH.
don't spread your bias crap all over the place.

secondly, yes, I do agree that some Christians are hypocrites. That doesn't mean they all are. don't characterize someone by a stereotype.

about Halloween. I'm not actually sure about what to believe.
on one hand, yes, it is a celebration of another religion.
on the other hand, well, now that Halloween has become what it's become, it's now just a family event for little kids to enjoy.

I guess someone will just have to step up and suggest a compromise.
hey, no offense to the person I replied to. I have no idea on how to write on this forum...