Updated 11:59 pm.EST, Fri November 20, 2009

Church|Thu, Oct. 15 2009 12:10 PM EDT

Pastor Offers a Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

The familiar debate on tribalism goes like this:

The emerging voices blame the traditional church for being sectarian, having no desire to reach people in postmodern culture, being uninterested in the biblical call to be creative in the arts and having sold out to Christendom (the church-state political alignment). Because the church has aligned itself with the state, it has a terrible reputation in society. In short, the traditional church has become irrelevant to the cause of Christ in the world.

The traditional voices argue the emerging church has succumbed to the worst forms of syncretism, becoming indistinguishable from the postmodern world they say they want to reach. They have assimilated, become worldly and lost their ability to be salt. 

After studying arguments from both sides, Belcher found that the emerging church is "thinking deeply about how postmodernism and the gospel of the kingdom are to interact, and how Christians can create and transform culture."

As Belcher cites, Steve Taylor contends in The Out of Bounds Church? that the traditional church's view of God's creation and the world has led them to confuse the world with worldliness. Though the Bible rejects worldliness, it does not condemn the world, which, of course, includes God's creation. Some strict fundamentalists in the traditional church show disdain toward creation and culture, and yet in doing so become proud, arrogant and uncaring.

"Taylor correctly calls the church to recapture a biblical view of the world which allows us to engage culture in a way that honors God's calling on our lives – to be missional, or what Jesus calls 'salt and light,'" Belcher wrote. "Since God has not given up on his good creation, neither should we."

Taylor encourages creating culture, mainly in the area of music and art.

Pastor John MacArthur pushes back saying the emerging church's biggest problem is their refusal to shun the world, Belcher cites. They labor under the false impression that in order to win the world for Christ, they have to gain its favor.

Pointing out weaknesses in both arguments, Belcher says "the traditional church is pacifist in the area of culture but not in the realm of politics, and the emerging church is pacifist in the realm of politics but not in the realm of culture. Both sides suffer from the lack of a comprehensive view of Christ and culture that treats the private and public realms in a consistent manner."

Belcher presents a third way. In a nutshell, be distinct from the surrounding culture but also engage it.

The PCA pastor offers a third way in greater detail for each of the seven protests he lays out. He uses his church, Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, Calif., as an approximation of what that third way, or the deep church, looks like but he insists that Redeemer is not the model.

"It’s a starting point," he said. "It’s not the end all and be all. I don’t think we've got it all figured out."

Deep church may not be the answer to reconciling the traditional and emerging camps, but he's hopeful that his book has at least broken down some of the distrust from each side.

"They're not as threatened by each other," he said. "I think that's good for the church."

Belcher wants more than anything, unity in the church.

"What I’m after is getting the church to be united around deep church or mere Christianity, as C.S. Lewis said first, so that we can work together and move into mission and really present a unified front to a watching world instead of one that’s always arguing and complaining," he said. "Why would someone out there want to join a family that’s always arguing?"

Pages: 12
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    blacksho, I know your religion is superior to all others........LOL

  • Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:03 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    If you knew anything about religion,you would know that the LDS church is polytheistic and not Christian. So your insults, uneducated as they are, do not sting.

  • Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 7

    Good one blacksho, belittling another Christian religion. Perhaps then, you can appreciate it when your religion is belittled.

    The Book and Mormon and the Bible have much in common. For starters, both were authored by humans...

  • Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:57 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    I don't think you need the LDS to tell you that you are a little god.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 4

    blacksho

    << You understand! I knew there was hope for you! >>

    Yes, I understand. The Book of Mormon is showing me the way just as you said it would.

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Interesting conversation about the "third way" article...

    Grace and Peace,
    Jim

  • Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Hmmm, according to your religion, all men are born sinners which could mean only one thing - no government."

    You understand! I knew there was hope for you!

    Under a theocracy such as enjoyed by the Israelites in the desert, God's will is made known directly to the people. Some still grumble, of course.

    Under the Judges, Israel enjoyed a Federalist form of government, with a weak central authority (although some of the Judges were more powerful than others). This had the advantage (to the human mind at least) of greater local autonomy.

    Unfortunately, Israel desired a king like their neighbors, and with a king comes less autonomy and personal freedoms; and a greater temptation toward corruption as power is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

    Were sinful man to repent and accept God as King on Earth, the institution of government as we know it would cease to exist. However, this will not happen until after the Day of the Lord, as God has decided to allow Man free will.

  • IHS »
    Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:39 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 7

    Nice one Blackshoe! My retreat is going great by the way, and I hope you are having a blest weekend.

    I am learning about all the many Catholic Saints in the first few centuries after the Apostles who were martyred to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Amazing people!

    I pray for many holy men and women of God to serve in public office so we can overturn Roe V. Wade and make sure gay marriage never gets legal.

    "Commit your works to the Lord And your thoughts will be established" Proverbs 16:3

  • Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:58 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

    << No, there is One author of the Bible, and you know it, whether you want to admit it or not. >>

    Oh, Like the Book of Mormon?

    << Had sinful man stayed out of government, we'd be in a lot better shape today. >>

    Hmmm, according to your religion, all men are born sinners which could mean only one thing - no government.

  • Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:36 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 1

    "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord."

    Psalms 33:12


    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    "He makes nations great, and destroys them; he enlarges nations, and disperses them. He deprives the leaders of the earth of their reason."

    Job 12:23

    ***********************************************************************


    ...having corrupt leaders shows that the nation is under GOd's chastisement.




    Chastisement (Divine Discipline)
    ===============================
    http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/chastisement.html

  • Sat Oct 17, 2009 1:32 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 0

    No, there is One author of the Bible, and you know it, whether you want to admit it or not.

    He gave us (well, Israel, anyway) the perfect form of government. That form was rejected because sinful man wants a king. Had sinful man stayed out of government, we'd be in a lot better shape today.

  • Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 6

    << The author of the Bible had it correct- keep sinful man out of government. >>

    But, but, I thought all people are sinful. without people there is no government. Without religion, you still have government..

    FYI, there are many, many authors of the bible...

  • Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:54 am Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

    It is very interesting reading thru some of the posts,republicans and democrats arguing and attacking the other's beliefs. The author of the Bible had it correct- keep sinful man out of government.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 11

    It is very interesting reading thru some of the posts, catholics and protestants arguing and attacking the other's beliefs. The authors of the US Constitution had it correct- keep religion out of government.

  • IHS »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:08 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 6

    Blackshoe,

    Have a nice weekend. Keep me in your prayers as I will pray for you.

    I am leaving for my first retreat weekend exploring becoming a Catholic Priest. As an evangelical going to convert this is very exciting. I will discern whether the Priesthood is my thing or becoming a Deacon or who knows.
    I will go where God leads me, as I put my whole Trust in the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

    Peace be with you!

  • IHS »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:03 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 7

    I'll do my best, thanks Blackshoe.

    I do believe now that the Catholic Church is correct in its doctrines and morals 100% of the time. Infallibly proclaimed you might say.

    What the Church proclaims and how it is administered and how people follow is very different things. You left out Nancy Pelosi too. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy were horible proponents of abortion without question. Since I live in the Cambridge area, I know of these men all too well.

    I heard that Ted had a very heartfelt confession before he died. If so, praise God. His purgatory may feel a lot like Hell, but at least he will be saved as is my hope for everyone.

    As an Evangelical conservative and third generation pastor in my family, I have found Catholics like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy have done a far better job serving the poor, the elderly, the homeless and the underpriveledge, and serving the sick than us evangelicals or Republican Catholics. By contrast, Conservative Catholics Like Rick Santorum and Jeb Bush and Evangelicals have done a better job protecting the unborn, the right to life at all stages, and protecting traditional marriage than have the liberals.

    Why can't we do everything without partisanship? Why can't we live all of the beatitudes instead of picking and choosing?

    I'm not sure I know the answer to this, other than we will all be judged for what we do in this life and I plainly hope to hear,"Well done good and faithful servant". I will simply do what I can and cooperate with God's grace to love all my neighbors.

    The practice of the Bishops or Priests giving communion to people like Kerry or Kennedy is a scandal, but it does not fall under infallibility. It is a practice that has flaws because it is people who are sinful that administer the practice.

    I can't immagine Ted or John or Nancy really believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist or they would be scared to death receiving it with their voting record. Paul's stern words of warning about taking the Eucharist unworthilly is scary.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:47 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    IHS: I TRULY appreciate you gentle and loving tone. You are teaching in the manner we are instructed. You are humble.
    Could you admonish your fellow Catholics to be the same? The quality of discourse would be greatly improved.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:29 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    http://www.equip.org/articles/papal-infallibility

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:20 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 6

    IHS: "Jesus then blest Simon and renamed him by saying "You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my church." I'm not sure if any of you are English majors or have sentence structure knowledge, but it is Peter who is the Rock, not his confession of faith"

    Yes, I AM an English geek. However, Jesus spoke in Aramaic and His words were recorded in Greek, which have different structural rules.

    "Saul to Paul is not a name change by the way. It is just the christian version of the same name; like Shimon to Simon."

    Actually, Saul means "Ask". Paul is Latin and means "Little". I believe that the reason for this name change is to remind Saul/Paul that a "Hebrew of Hebrews" is nothing compared to the Lord.

    "Only Peter receives revelation on who Jesus is..."
    Well, and John the Baptist.

    Much (most) of the rest of your post is correct. I ask you a question:

    Why can the Roman church be so correct on the right to life, and yet allow Ted Kennedy a pass? The guy never met an abortion he didn't like, and yet the bishops (who serve under the Pope) allowed a dispensation for this man?

    Abortion is either a sin; or it is in line with God's good and perfect will. If John Kerry was denied Communion because of his stance, and if Kennedy was even worse, why could he take Communion? Which bishops, under the guidance of the infallible Pope, were wrong?

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:14 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 3

    Pope is his Prime Minister who holds the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven."

    explain why a few seconds later Jesus said to Peter:

    23"Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."
    sounds like he lost they keys.
    ________________________________________________________

    5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

    6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

    8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."
    John 14

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:07 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    In America, we have so many "ways" that calling his idea a third way puts him a little behind the times. Catholic, Anglican(high church, low church, break off church) Baptist, Pentecostal, Orthodox, Anabaptist, Quaker, Unitarian, and the beat goes on.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:22 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 3

    "Is this your best example of referring to the Pope?"

    No, I could actually post much more but Catholics here tend to avoid answering the tough questions and simply do not respond . . .

  • IHS »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:19 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 9

    Is this your best example of referring to the Pope?

    The Pope is not worshipped and nor does he sit on a throne. He does sit on a Chair of authority, just like Moses did.

    The Pope's chair is a chair of authority, not a throne.
    Read any of the Pope's books; Jesus of Nazareth, etc.

    Jesus is the King of Kings and the Head of the Church and the Pope is his Prime Minister who holds the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

    My fellow Evangelicals really have a tough time explaining away the Keys.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:46 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 4

    Q: "Where is this man of pompous elevation, who many call "Holy Father," mentioned in the word of God?"

    A: "Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:54 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 2

    Where is this man of pompous elevation, who many call "Holy Father," mentioned in the word of God?" Christians have only one Holy Father, God in heaven. Jesus speaks to seven churches in the book of Revelation and not one mention of a Supreme Pontiff with earthly crown and throne, sitting preeminent among them. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

  • IHS »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:51 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 6

    Wilderness,

    You do realize don't you that passage refers to the Old Testament, since the New had not been written yet?

    If you think that passage points to sola scriptura, then you are wrong since it would only prove the Old Testament is sufficient and therefore the New Testament would not be.

    Context can be helpful.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:46 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 5

    "Their whole problem is the usual. It's not in the Bible. To me, that just proves, once again, the inadequacy of the protestant concept of sola scriptura in understanding Christianity." -Cheisa

    "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16, 17.)

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:40 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 12

    Chas,

    Now you can see why non-Catholics have to insist that the first Church wasn't the self-same Catholic Church that has endured for 2000 years. What first and second century Christians have to say supports what the Catholic Church teaches and holds to be true. These Christians studied, taught, worked, learned and died with the Apostles. The same truths that Christ handed to the Twelve, they handed to their disciples in the oral tradition that Paul told Timothy to carry on with his sons, their sons and their sons. Ignatius and others left a written record of what the first Christians thought, believed and practiced, invaluable information that addresses things left unclear (to some) in the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles.

    Their whole problem is the usual. It's not in the Bible. To me, that just proves, once again, the inadequacy of the protestant concept of sola scriptura in understanding Christianity. The Church was already 4 centuries old when the Catholic Church assembled the sacred texts into the NT. The NT ends without a word of how the Church Christ founded had fared for 400 years. Not a word of it's struggles or history. That's a pretty big gap in the data bank for anyone wants to be a Christian, who ignores all those significant and holy Christians who lived after the Twelve.

    I don't see how you can claim such adoration for the Book and show such disregard for the men and the Church who preserved it for centuries, combatted the numerous heresies along the way, compiled the sacred texts into the NT canon and prospered as the only Christian Church for 1500 years.

    I think it's called living with blinders on.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:29 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 3

    amen, blacksho,
    My story sounds alot likes yours. My mother and her sister were
    taken to a Catholic Ophanage when they were near their teens.
    The horror stories are well documented and are still coming out
    about how some nuns and priests treated children. A brother was
    later vicitmized by a priest. So IHS, it has nothing to do with
    good or poor decipleship, it has to do with a change of heart
    through repentance and the Blood of Jesus Christ who died for
    our sins. God has children, not grandchildren.
    Mary gave you the best advice in the Bible:
    " "Do whatever he tells you." John 2: 5

  • IHS »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 3:07 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 9

    Blackshoe,

    Hi. I know of many Catholics from your generation that had a similar experience. Where they learned the traditions, but didn't gain a saving relationship with Christ. Sad, but true. Today's current younger Catholics know their faith, know Jesus and the traditions of course.

    These same ex-Catholics became evangelical Christians. Many of them in my grandparents and my father's Church. With the ability to search the internet, more of these ex-Catholics are coming back home to the Catholic Church in droves. Why? Well, many of their evangelical churches have gone through splits or have made a poor decision on gay marriage or abortion or the church service is being turned into a entertainment fix rather than worship. They turn to the internet and find that their initial misunderstandings of Catholicism was wrong. Some stay evangelical, but many return home because it is truly the only church that stands firm on certain conservative issues.

    From an evangelical perspective, I just think they were poorly discipled like you. We have them too in our churches and they bounce around from church to church. Church shopping as I call it.

    I think it is ashame when any Catholic or Protestant church doesn't disciple their members well enough. We all have members who are not well educated in the faith or have a saving relationship with Christ.

    It would be great if you pursued the Truth with much passion and be lead where Jesus wants you to go. My hunch is you will return to the Catholic Church.

    I will be entering full communion with the Catholic Church next Easter and beginning my Seminary classes to become a Priest.

  • IHS »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:56 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 10

    I actually had an issue when I was first exploring the Catholic faith with Peter being the Rock.

    Here are some thoughts from my perspective, which is not infallible. The Apostle's name was Simon. Jesus was the first to identify Jesus as the Messiah not on his own human understanding, but rather because God the Father spoke directly to Simon.

    God the father did not speak to any of the other Apostles in this way, so it is special. God the Father gave a special revelation to Simon alone.

    Jesus then blest Simon and renamed him by saying "You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my church." I'm not sure if any of you are English majors or have sentence structure knowledge, but it is Peter who is the Rock, not his confession of faith. If it was his confession of faith, then the sentence structure would have been clearly pointing to this. It does not. You denotes Simon, not the confession of faith.

    So, sentence structure alone backs up the Catholic claim. Secondly, any time a person in the bible has their name changed it is special and denotes a new mission. Simon's name is changed to Rock-Cephas-Kephas-Petros(male). So, the name change is significant as Jesus does not change anyone else's name. Saul to Paul is not a name change by the way. It is just the christian version of the same name; like Shimon to Simon.

    The Catholic position wins on sentence structure, on the signficance of the name change. They also win this arguement because Peter is the first to do everything with authority. Only Peter receives revelation on who Jesus is and to let in the Gentiles into the Church. It is always Peter and the Apostles or Peter and his brothers. Peter is also mentioned 195 times in the Bible more than all the others combined.

    Lastly, Peter is the only one Christ prays for to strengthen his faith to keep his brother strong. History also points to a special primacy for Peter among the Apostles.

    Yes, Peter is a fellow bishop and a fellow Apostle and presbyter. This does not diminish is primacy, since he hold the final Keys of Authority which is a reference to Is 22.

    The Catholic position is objectively much stronger, than the non-Catholic position. If they got this right, then they got other things right too!

    I then questioned Purgatory, Priestly confession, Eucharist and Mary. One after another their position is objectively much stronger.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:51 pm Agree: 8   Disagree: 4

    I was baptized as an infant (Sts Peter and Paul, Wheatridge, CO), confirmed as a teen (Our Lady of Fatima, Lakewood, CO), but did not become a Christian until a congregant from the Church of the Nazarene(Paonia, CO) introduced me to Him.
    I knew all the Traditions, but I didn't know Christ.
    I knew the Catholic Calisthenics, but I was never introduced to Christ.

    A church that does not teach Christ is a church whose lampstand has been removed.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:14 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 4

    lpepperw,

    There are others here including myself who were once Catholic and can see through all this huey . . .

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:11 pm Agree: 10   Disagree: 3

    “The Pope has never contradicted an "Infallible Statement" ever in 2000 years”

    That is a hill of beans; you may want to go back and review some of the historical examples that were posted on: ELCA Delegates OK Full Communion with UMC. For example, how do you reconcile Pope Boniface VIII’s pronouncement of those outside the church as heretics with today’s pronouncement of those outside of the church as separated brethren?


    “…and there are more early church fathers who concur with that position.”

    So, you admit that many of the church fathers did not hold to the same position. Like John Chrysostom who wrote:

    “Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (In Pentecosten, Migne 52.806.75-807.1)

    “The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession. (53rd Homily on St. Matthew) “

    And Cyprian of Carthage who wrote in his Epistle XXVI:

    “Just as the one Church of Christ is divided into many members throughout the world, so the one episcopate is expanded into a multiplicity of many bishops united in concord.”

    “Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained, yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power...”

    Read for yourself: http://www.rusjournal.com/patristics.html


    Chas, you always want others to go back and read what the earliest Christians thought and wrote but you fail to do this yourself. You fail to read what the apostles themselves wrote and prefer instead to reference others who you claim were instructed by the apostles. The reason for this I think is that you are well aware that many of Rome’s teachings were in fact not taught by the apostles . . . Right?

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:02 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 4

    chas,
    As a former catholic, it is sad how wrong you are.
    You come very close to blasphemy when you try to
    contain the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in a box
    with fallen mans description only.
    Besides, this discussion is about the emergents trying
    to redefine who they are.

  • Chas »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:58 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 9

    Here is my point to all those who give me thumbs down.

    Is your faith today the same as the Apostles and their successors or different?

    I know many Protestants who actually think Ignatius was wrong on church hierarchy, baptism of infants, Eucharist,etc.

    I find it personally amazing that someone who never personally knew the Apostles and came almost 2000 years later, thinks they have it more correct than someone who personally knew the Apostles. Not just one Apostle, but quite a few and was made a bishop by them.

    You actually think he got these things wrong?

    Think about it. Someone who knew the Apostles versus someone who didn't and has no connection historically to them and lived centuries and centuries later.

    A Christian who has just a tad bit of commone sense would say the former is right and later is wrong.

  • Chas »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 7

    Blackshoe,

    It is only perceived as arrogance when you love the bible so much as you do, and yet it gets its authority from God through the Catholic Church.

    "I would not believe the Gospels if it were not for the authority of the Catholic Church." Saint Augustine of Hippo

    To love God's Word, through men who wrote it down who you have no connection to and are not a member of their church must be very difficult.

    How could God give so much to a church like the Catholic Church, so much authority and yet you say it is wrong in certain areas? This is arrogance my friend. This church cannot make mistakes in faith and morals, because her authority comes directly from God. Unlike Protestant churches which are man-made, our church was founded by God.

  • Chas »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:45 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 7

    Famous quotes of Ignatius of Antioch: Do these sound Catholic or Protestant to you?

    On the Eucharist:
    Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

    On authority:
    Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid. — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

    His loyalty to Christ:
    I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all, that I am dying willingly for God's sake, if only you do not prevent it. I beg you, do not do me an untimely kindness. Allow me to be eaten by the beasts, which are my way of reaching to God. I am God's wheat, and I am to be ground by the teeth of wild beasts, so that I may become the pure bread of Christ.— Letter to the Romans

    Sunday becoming the Christian day of Worship:
    Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace.... If then those who had walked in ancient practices attained unto newness of hope, no longer observing Sabbaths but fashioning their lives after the Lord's day, on which our life also arose through Him and through His death which some men deny ... how shall we be able to live apart from Him? ... It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism. For Christianity did not believe in Judaism, but Judaism in Christianity — Ignatius to the Magnesians 8:1, 9:1-2, 10:3, Lightfoot translation.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:43 pm Agree: 11   Disagree: 4

    Chas: "Don't point to the bible my friend, as this is our book which God inspired us to write. "

    Your arrogance and false pride are unbecoming.

  • Chas »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:42 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 7

    Ignatius of Antioch: Travelled with Paul, personally knew John and Peter and Andrew.

    St. Ignatius is the first writer to stress the virgin birth. He firmly denounced Docetism and viewed the mystery of the Trinity as an assumed doctrine of faith. The only guarantee against heresy, he taught, is the church united under a BISHOP. St. Ignatius is the first in Christian literature to use the word Catholic.

    He wrote Seven letters:
    The seven letters considered to be authentic are:
    69ad - 107ad
    To the Ephesians
    To the Magnesians
    Letter to the Trallians
    To the Romans
    To the Philadelphians
    To the Smyrnaeans
    To Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna

    In these letters he emphasizes loyalty to the local bishop, and he clearly describes the role of hierarchy; Bishop, Priest and Deacon. These letters also emphasize the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

  • Chas »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:31 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 7

    I've read many "Histories of Christiany" by many Protestant authors and even they concur the "Catholic Church" was the first.

    Most of them say, christianity emerged from its Jewish religion as a distinct religion between 60-70ad. The Bishops like Ignatius of Antioch who personally knew the Apostles; Peter, Andrew, John and travelled with Paul, were the organized beginnings of the Catholic Church in seminal form.

    While this is not exact, it is pretty close to an accurate depiction, even if it is does by Protestants.

    The Catholic Church, which defined the Incarnation, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, Jesus as fully divine and fully man, the Mother of God, saved by Grace, and the 27 books of the New Testament were all defined in ECUMENICAL COUNCILS with the Approval of the Bishop of Rome. Without the Bishop of Rome's approval the ecumenical council would be invalid.

    This is my church that did these things because of her authority established by Christ. Catholic Authority comes from Jesus himself through the Apostles.

    Where is your authority come from? Don't point to the bible my friend, as this is our book which God inspired us to write. What gives the scriptures authority is that the Catholic Church knew which scriptures are inspired and which were not.

    Without accepting the main tenets of Christianity as defined by the Catholic Church, Protestants would not be Christians. You are, but you are also on a slippery slope because you have no authority to interpret scriptures.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:30 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    tpique1,
    That is the best description of the emergent "church" in the fewest
    words I have seen!
    Chas, you started out so well and then..........
    Many of those who started the emergent movement now say they are
    not emergent and have ditched the title. Have they renounced and repented
    of the anti-gospel they were spreading? Brian McLaren and Chris Seay
    were rewriting the Bible to make it more friendly in their own eyes, they are
    still being promoted and sold in Christian Bookstores.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:24 pm Agree: 7   Disagree: 0

    "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God."

    -- John 3:3

  • Chas »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:19 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 9

    Online,

    The Spin Zone stops here. Pick up a history of Christianity book and you will see that Catholic Christianity is the first. Our beliefs are the foundation of the Christian Church.

    The Pope has never contradicted an "Infallible Statement" ever in 2000 years. Protestants much more accredited in research and theology realize Peter is the Rock, and there are more early church fathers who concur with that position. Peter was always in Charge of the Apostles. He had a special Primacy over all the others. He had the Keys which gave him final binding and loosing authority.

    The Orthodox Church, recently in Ravenna Italy, agreed that the Bishop of Rome does have Primacy above all other bishops of the universal church. This primacy of honor is being defined based on the original position of Peter and the earliest Pope's.

    I'm sorry that you deny such historical truths of how the Bishop of Rome, unlike any other Bishop, exercised his office as pastor of Rome AND THE WHOLE Universal Church. Churches in Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch and Jerusalem all knew that there was one church that all must agree with and that was the Church of Rome. All agreement must be based on what the Roman Church believed, since it was protected from error in the person of the bishop of Rome.

  • Chas »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:10 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 9

    How can you follow the Lord Blackshoe in the 1st century without following the Apostles and what they preached?

    Yes, I know that passage. The difference is my church had ALL OF THESE APOSTLES. So, we didn't have to choose to follow one or another "Cephas" Or "Paul" because they all had the same faith.

    Yes, these men's teachings of Christ I do follow. Yes, they are men. Holy and righteous men called personally by God to lead his Church. These men empowered by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost did not fail, ever!

    Jesus made promises to his Church, the problem is those promises don't go with people who leave it.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:49 pm Agree: 9   Disagree: 3

    Chas: "This is where my church was founded by Paul and Peter, the two greatest Apostles."

    And that is the problem with the Roman church-it was founded by men. Whereas Christ's church was founded by Christ.

    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."

    As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. Not follow Peter and Paul.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:48 pm Agree: 8   Disagree: 5

    Chas,

    Most of us here have heard these repeated claims time and time again but I have yet to see any evidence for these lofty assertions; for example, in past discussions you have posted that all early Christians recognized Peter to be the “Rock” on which the church was founded but then there was posted evidence of certain church fathers who did not see it that way, then there was the claim of papal infallibility but then there was posted historical examples popes contradicting themselves and one another, then there was the claim that the apostles handed down a host of traditions but then it was asked “Please specifically name the traditions that the apostles handed down” and there has been no answer, then there was the claim that your church gave us the Bible but then a quote from your first Vatican Council proved otherwise, and then there is the claim the Roman Church was/is the same Church recorded in the New Testament but the New Testament ironically does not mention many of Catholicism’s teachings . . .

    So what can one logically conclude regarding these pretentious claims made by the Roman Catholic Church? Answer: “Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting” . . .

  • Chas »
    Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:55 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 13

    Online,

    Ever read the Book of ROMANS????? This is where my church was founded by Paul and Peter, the two greatest Apostles.

    Ever read the Epistle to the Corinthians, Ephesians, Thessalonians and any of the other letters? These letters were written to other Catholic Churches in communion with Apostles.

    The New Testament is a history of Salvation through Christ and the beginning history of the Catholic Church. The original Epistles in the 3rd century were actually called,"The Catholic Epistles". We were one church and still are. You should come back.

    The New Testament is a Catholic book, written by our founders about Jesus Christ who authored only one church built on the Apostles.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:37 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    There's nothing hostile about it. What calls itself the "emergent church" isn't the church at all.

    Period.

    There's nothing to debate.

    And the argument isn't about "listening" it's about "observing".

    "These people, they honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

    It isn't about what comes out of their mouths, it's the FRUIT that they are producing that is the issue. The fruit we produce trumps anything we say. You can call yourself a Christian till you're blue in the face, but it's in the fruit you produce that legitimizes it.

    Today, there are many people who know the right things to SAY, but their hearts are not committed to OR surrendered to God's Lordship. They have an heir of Christianity...they know the doctrines of the church...they even write beautiful songs, but their lives are more worldly than you can imagine.

    The emergent church is seeker sensitive, nonconfrontational, and is devoid of preaching the Gospel message "as it is written". It also denies absolute truth. Therefore Jesus' absolute claim to deity is excused. The emergent movement focuses on a humanistic approach and elevating the flesh.

    A watered down gospel is NO gospel at all.

    Not only this, but Brain McLaren, the emergent movement's leader is quoted as saying this:

    "Pantheism certainly has much to offer, and our understanding of monotheism is enriched, I believe, by dialogue with monotheism’s primary theological colleague. Incidentally, if Christian monotheism is true, pantheism might not be so much false as it is, “not true yet,” for Christians believe that history is flowing toward a goal in which God is in everything, and everything is in God…a vision not unlike that of one version of pantheism." (called panentheism, to be precise) (118)

    Brain McLaren believes "all roads lead to God". he does not hold to the strict teachings of scripture when Jesus said that: "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE life. No one comes to the Father but by Me."

    The emergent church is in the category Jesus described in Matthew 24:11: "And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."

    It may look good and sound good, but under the surface is a very real deception.

  • Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:21 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 2

    " Is unity possible?"

    =========================


    “There is ONE body and ONE Spirit, just as also you were called in ONE hope of your calling; ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism, ONR God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesians 4:4-6).


    Unity is defined by the seven truths, that is,
    seven ‘ones,’ brought up by Paul in these verses. The number seven represents perfect and holy, a full representation of the Lord.

    The key question is not whether it is impossible but whether we are willing to do as Paul says and be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit.

    We do acknowledged that the Spirit of God is not with every group of people, but where He is present we must practically and seriously get down to asking how to preserve the unity of the Spirit.




    =========================================================

    The Doctrine of Unity (Ephesians 4:4-6)

    http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/References/NT/Pauline/Ephesians/Ephesians4/Ephesians4_04-5_Theology-Oneness.html

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Listen to Sermons by  
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Church
  • Gifts
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Bethany House Publishers

It was a balmy California evening. I had gone for a jog before I was to speak at a leadership conference. I still can't recall how I got there, but I found myself sitting on a curb

Featured Advertiser Links