-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What about the mainline Protestant religions?
- Thread starter Blackhawkk
- Start date
Blackhawkk
New Member
Hence, that's why I have a problem with all these "denominations". Isn't "liberal christian" an oxymoron? If somebody agrees with Spong I have a hard time believing they're Christian.
You know, when we stand before the Lord, He isn't going to ask us what church we attended, He's already going to know if we accepted Jesus as our savior, that's what counts!
================================================
So, why do you lump us all in the same envelope, and not view each individual as to their own convictions? Should I believe that ALL AMericans believe the same because Spong is an American?
You are so-called non-denominational, which is also an oxymoron, because you are a denomination unto yourself.
Perhaps we believe in our church even if we don't believe in some of the men and women serving our church. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, to use an old cliche.
Read our creeds, to which we subscribe, and tell us you don't accept what they say.
By the way, "liberal Christian" is simply a term to explain where the person stands theologically and not his status before God. Don't be so parochial with words and expressions. I understand the term quite well.
At my church, one chap is an atheist. Will you now label my church as being a church of unbelievers? Frankly, I am glad he is there. At least in the pews he can hear the word each week.
Cheers,
Jim
================================================
So, why do you lump us all in the same envelope, and not view each individual as to their own convictions? Should I believe that ALL AMericans believe the same because Spong is an American?
You are so-called non-denominational, which is also an oxymoron, because you are a denomination unto yourself.
Perhaps we believe in our church even if we don't believe in some of the men and women serving our church. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, to use an old cliche.
Read our creeds, to which we subscribe, and tell us you don't accept what they say.
By the way, "liberal Christian" is simply a term to explain where the person stands theologically and not his status before God. Don't be so parochial with words and expressions. I understand the term quite well.
At my church, one chap is an atheist. Will you now label my church as being a church of unbelievers? Frankly, I am glad he is there. At least in the pews he can hear the word each week.
Cheers,
Jim
I can only speak to my experiences in one place, but what I found so frustrating, after 13 years in one of those mainlines, was the disparity between the denominational leaders and the folks in the pew.
The folks understood what was expected of them, had an earnest desire to study, pray, seek God's will and to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. Then we would get a letter or directive from somewhere up the food chain proclaim things contrary to what they had learned. I found little patience at the grassroots level for doctrinal experimentation, denial of the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, encouragement to say nothing against obvious sin out of fear of hurting someone's feelings, etc.
Out of 58 pastors in our district less than 10 said they could testify to a conversion experience. They could tell you of their divorces, family crises or other life changing events but few could tell of a day, as Wesley stated when, "I felt my heart strangly warmed..."
Is it a denominational problem? Denominations are still made up of individuals. It is not so much a problem of the corporation as it is of individuals identifying themselves with Corpus Christi.
The folks understood what was expected of them, had an earnest desire to study, pray, seek God's will and to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. Then we would get a letter or directive from somewhere up the food chain proclaim things contrary to what they had learned. I found little patience at the grassroots level for doctrinal experimentation, denial of the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, encouragement to say nothing against obvious sin out of fear of hurting someone's feelings, etc.
Out of 58 pastors in our district less than 10 said they could testify to a conversion experience. They could tell you of their divorces, family crises or other life changing events but few could tell of a day, as Wesley stated when, "I felt my heart strangly warmed..."
Is it a denominational problem? Denominations are still made up of individuals. It is not so much a problem of the corporation as it is of individuals identifying themselves with Corpus Christi.
Padredurand, One of the chief problems stems from the schools that train these ministers. Perhaps we need to get the schools back under control and sound in theology.
In my diocese, all the ministers are evangelical, and a couple are even charismatic. I can't say the same for the next diocese, where the liberals predominate, but we all claim to be Anglicans.
Cheers,
Jim
In my diocese, all the ministers are evangelical, and a couple are even charismatic. I can't say the same for the next diocese, where the liberals predominate, but we all claim to be Anglicans.
Cheers,
Jim
I don't think the Episcopalian Church or the Methodist Church are cults. They teach the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and salvation by grace. You will find liberals in all denominations, not just in those.
If you want to see a cult, just visit the Philadelphia Church of God, which believes in the teachings of Herbert Armstrong (no Trinity, deity for mankind, Anglo-Israelism, etc.). A former co-worker is a member of that group.
He told me that he doesn't believe in the Trinity because the Trinity limits God to only three Persons and there should be more Persons in the Godhead than that. He calls it "the God family." He later said that on Judgment Day, he and certain other specially selected people will become members of the Godhead like the Father and the Son are.
He also stated that when he becomes a member of
the God family, no one will be able to look upon his face and live, but he will be able to manifest himself to other people. I guess that means that the next time somebody sees a burning bush, it might be my co-worker!
His group has a secret that only they know about: Who is the third Elijah? When I asked him who it was, he became upset, pointed his finger at me, and said, "That information is too dangerous for you to know!! It could cost you your salvation!"
The above teachings are hallmarks of a cult.
If you want to see a cult, just visit the Philadelphia Church of God, which believes in the teachings of Herbert Armstrong (no Trinity, deity for mankind, Anglo-Israelism, etc.). A former co-worker is a member of that group.
He told me that he doesn't believe in the Trinity because the Trinity limits God to only three Persons and there should be more Persons in the Godhead than that. He calls it "the God family." He later said that on Judgment Day, he and certain other specially selected people will become members of the Godhead like the Father and the Son are.
He also stated that when he becomes a member of
the God family, no one will be able to look upon his face and live, but he will be able to manifest himself to other people. I guess that means that the next time somebody sees a burning bush, it might be my co-worker!
His group has a secret that only they know about: Who is the third Elijah? When I asked him who it was, he became upset, pointed his finger at me, and said, "That information is too dangerous for you to know!! It could cost you your salvation!"
The above teachings are hallmarks of a cult.
I think this is an issue of 'ecclesiolae in ecclesiae': there are liberal Anglicans/ Episcopalians, liberal Presbyterians, liberal Methodists, liberal Lutherans and, yes, even liberal Baptists. There are even (whisper it) liberal Catholics; they're called progressives and were disappointed at the election of +++Benedict last year - anyone would think they were wanting a liberal Protestant lesbian Pope!
But there are also evangelicals and conservatives in all of the above denominations. The Church of England here has many more evangelical congregations than its ECUSA counterpart, for example.
But there are also evangelicals and conservatives in all of the above denominations. The Church of England here has many more evangelical congregations than its ECUSA counterpart, for example.
To give you an Anglican perspective on the whole liberal v Catholic v evangelical thingy, here's something I wrote earlier:-
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3574.html?
Just follow the links on my second post to get a feel for it.
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/28/3574.html?
Just follow the links on my second post to get a feel for it.
Gold Dragon
Well-Known Member
There are also baptists who are extreme liberal and extreme fundamentalists. Although the extreme liberal baptists get no press or academic recognition while the extreme fundamentalist baptist get lots of press.
Should all baptists be judged by these extremes and considered cults because of folks like Fred Phelps? That is what some folks here are doing by using Spong as being representative of all Anglicans.
Should all baptists be judged by these extremes and considered cults because of folks like Fred Phelps? That is what some folks here are doing by using Spong as being representative of all Anglicans.
TrueToTheWord
New Member
While we should not judge a denomination by its extremes, we do need to examine what we mean when we use the term "extremes". I can speak from experience as a lay person in the UMC (having left more than two years ago, but still monitor the situation).
The short version is this -- most of the UMC's leadership at the national level and many of its Annual Conferences (you can think of these as regions) are led by those that evangelicals/conservatives would consider "liberal", "progressives" and perhaps "non-Christian".
I came from an Annual Conference where the now retired bishop, Bishop Joseph C. Sprague, wrote a book denying the virgin birth, denying the physical resurrection, denying the substitutionary atonement, and denying Christ as the only way of salvation. A complaint was filed by laity and clergy, and a supervisory council consisting of two bishops and two laity dismissed the charges. Most of the fellow bishops supported Bishop Sprague; a few (2-3) went on record disagreeing with his theology, but never did any bishop publically call for him to resign, nor state that his theology was non-Christian. And not to mention the issue of support for homosexual clergy and members --- that is a topic in and of itself.
There are several reform groups seeking to fight this liberal leadership, but when you are in a local church that pays its apportionments (denominational taxes) to the Annual Conference and to the General Conference, you are indeed supporting the devil's work, in my opinion.
It is a mess, and while there are many evangelicals still left, I would say that the denomination would not be a place I'd ever recommend that anyone seeking a church that proclaims the truth.
The short version is this -- most of the UMC's leadership at the national level and many of its Annual Conferences (you can think of these as regions) are led by those that evangelicals/conservatives would consider "liberal", "progressives" and perhaps "non-Christian".
I came from an Annual Conference where the now retired bishop, Bishop Joseph C. Sprague, wrote a book denying the virgin birth, denying the physical resurrection, denying the substitutionary atonement, and denying Christ as the only way of salvation. A complaint was filed by laity and clergy, and a supervisory council consisting of two bishops and two laity dismissed the charges. Most of the fellow bishops supported Bishop Sprague; a few (2-3) went on record disagreeing with his theology, but never did any bishop publically call for him to resign, nor state that his theology was non-Christian. And not to mention the issue of support for homosexual clergy and members --- that is a topic in and of itself.
There are several reform groups seeking to fight this liberal leadership, but when you are in a local church that pays its apportionments (denominational taxes) to the Annual Conference and to the General Conference, you are indeed supporting the devil's work, in my opinion.
It is a mess, and while there are many evangelicals still left, I would say that the denomination would not be a place I'd ever recommend that anyone seeking a church that proclaims the truth.
TrueToTheWord,
I used to be a United Methodist and left because I had some problems with that denomination, too. When I joined in 1985, they were OK, but they gradually became more and more liberal. I became upset when they began teaching an exteme form of pacifism. For example, one of their Bible study materials stated that if the Russians attacked us with nuclear weapons, we shouldn't fight back. We should just let them destroy us. They also had a story in which an armed citizen was killed while shooting at an escaped criminal. Not only were they anti-gun, they were anti self defense. I later found out that the UMC was using money to support gun control, which didn't set too well with me; I'm a member of the National Rifle Association. At the same time, they were becoming more anti-Biblical. When the new preacher read a story to the kids, she said that God is called "Mother." I said to the person sitting next to me, "But God isn't addressed as Mother anywhere in the Bible." She shook her head. I complained to the senior minister about it, and he backed her up. Things worsened to the point that in April, 1996, I sent a letter to the senior minister, stating I was resigning from the United Methodist Church. I later joined the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
I used to be a United Methodist and left because I had some problems with that denomination, too. When I joined in 1985, they were OK, but they gradually became more and more liberal. I became upset when they began teaching an exteme form of pacifism. For example, one of their Bible study materials stated that if the Russians attacked us with nuclear weapons, we shouldn't fight back. We should just let them destroy us. They also had a story in which an armed citizen was killed while shooting at an escaped criminal. Not only were they anti-gun, they were anti self defense. I later found out that the UMC was using money to support gun control, which didn't set too well with me; I'm a member of the National Rifle Association. At the same time, they were becoming more anti-Biblical. When the new preacher read a story to the kids, she said that God is called "Mother." I said to the person sitting next to me, "But God isn't addressed as Mother anywhere in the Bible." She shook her head. I complained to the senior minister about it, and he backed her up. Things worsened to the point that in April, 1996, I sent a letter to the senior minister, stating I was resigning from the United Methodist Church. I later joined the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
TrueToTheWord
New Member
Oh and there's more -- tarot cards, wiccan rites, Native American spiritualism, support for abortion. It's all documented, and present in many places, even in the so-called "conservative" jurisdictions.
TrueToTheWord,
I knew about the United Methodist Church supporting abortion, but I didn't know they were into tarot cards and other occult practices. Could you provide some links? I would like to read them.
Another thing that bugged me was their universalism, in which they think EVERYONE will be saved. It was taught in one of their Bible study materials in 1990. I became concerned and wrote a letter to the publishing house, Graded Press. They replied that "this discussion and even the conjecture are within the guidelines set by the United Methodist Church, which is made up of multi-cultural and highly pluralistic group of Christians." The letter went on to say that the two writers who advocated universalism, that their "credentials far exceed the basics required to serve an entire denomination across this country and around the world in the ministry of Christian education."
They conveniently ignored the many Bible passages that indicate that not everyone is saved and some people do go to hell and suffer forever.
I don't agree with everyhing the LCMS teaches, but at least they don't teach universalism and they are not very political, so at least I don't have to worry about them using money to support gun control.
I knew about the United Methodist Church supporting abortion, but I didn't know they were into tarot cards and other occult practices. Could you provide some links? I would like to read them.
Another thing that bugged me was their universalism, in which they think EVERYONE will be saved. It was taught in one of their Bible study materials in 1990. I became concerned and wrote a letter to the publishing house, Graded Press. They replied that "this discussion and even the conjecture are within the guidelines set by the United Methodist Church, which is made up of multi-cultural and highly pluralistic group of Christians." The letter went on to say that the two writers who advocated universalism, that their "credentials far exceed the basics required to serve an entire denomination across this country and around the world in the ministry of Christian education."
They conveniently ignored the many Bible passages that indicate that not everyone is saved and some people do go to hell and suffer forever.
I don't agree with everyhing the LCMS teaches, but at least they don't teach universalism and they are not very political, so at least I don't have to worry about them using money to support gun control.
TrueToTheWord
New Member
JFox1,
Some links for you:
Timeline of the Sophia/"goddess" Theologies
Pagan Worship in a United Methodist Church
FUMC Austin Texas Newsletter - Article "The Spirituality of the Tarot"
For research into issues in the UMC, these sites are good sources:
NIC VOICE
The Unofficial Confessing Movement Page
United Methodist Action - Institute for Religion & Democracy
Good News Magazine
The Confessing Movement of the United Methodist Church
Concerned Methodists
And if you want to see the liberal resources, these are a few:
Affirmation - United Methodists for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Concerns
Methodist Federation for Social Action
Reconciling Ministries Network
Some links for you:
Timeline of the Sophia/"goddess" Theologies
Pagan Worship in a United Methodist Church
FUMC Austin Texas Newsletter - Article "The Spirituality of the Tarot"
For research into issues in the UMC, these sites are good sources:
NIC VOICE
The Unofficial Confessing Movement Page
United Methodist Action - Institute for Religion & Democracy
Good News Magazine
The Confessing Movement of the United Methodist Church
Concerned Methodists
And if you want to see the liberal resources, these are a few:
Affirmation - United Methodists for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Concerns
Methodist Federation for Social Action
Reconciling Ministries Network
TrueToTheWord
New Member
You're welcome. Unfortunately, these issues also exist in the EPUSA, ECLA, PCUSA and UCC. Until you've been in it, you really can't imagine what goes on, supposedly in the name of Christ.
After you left, how soon did you connect the your new church home?
After you left, how soon did you connect the your new church home?
I remember the first time my wife and I visited a SBC church as a visitor and we were shocked when we heard a lady pray and thank God that she was a Baptist. The area of the US I came from that was not something to be proud about. The majority of Baptist churches were closing their doors because they were not evangelistic. A lot of people were leaving for Bible churches and non-denominational conservative evangelistic churches.