Comments on: Changing Church Part. 2 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:08:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1.3 By: Jasen Tracy http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-725 Jasen Tracy Tue, 21 Aug 2007 20:13:06 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-725 "Another person however may go further and say that the only apologetic arguments that the church can use is those grounded on science and rationality and begin to read, understand, and identify only with a Christianity that fits within the rational and scientific understanding of Christianity." I have seen that happen, and I don't think it's a good thing. There's the type of apologists who say we have evidence so we don't need faith (or that it take more faith to be an atheist). I think that makes reason the highest authority instead of God, and it damages Christianity by dismissing faith. “Another person however may go further and say that the only apologetic arguments that the church can use is those grounded on science and rationality and begin to read, understand, and identify only with a Christianity that fits within the rational and scientific understanding of Christianity.”

I have seen that happen, and I don’t think it’s a good thing. There’s the type of apologists who say we have evidence so we don’t need faith (or that it take more faith to be an atheist). I think that makes reason the highest authority instead of God, and it damages Christianity by dismissing faith.

]]> By: Darius http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-726 Darius Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:09:31 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-726 To some extent, the Bible says that itself. "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." That is not to say that one can "prove" the existence of God, at least in a modern scientific or empirical manner. But it does seem to imply that God is so obvious, one has to be willfully blind (faithful to atheism) to not acknowledge His existence. To some extent, the Bible says that itself. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

That is not to say that one can “prove” the existence of God, at least in a modern scientific or empirical manner. But it does seem to imply that God is so obvious, one has to be willfully blind (faithful to atheism) to not acknowledge His existence.

]]> By: Jasen Tracy http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-727 Jasen Tracy Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:27:26 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-727 "Divine power" has been seen from nature, but that could easily lead you to Deism, or Islam, or something else. “Divine power” has been seen from nature, but that could easily lead you to Deism, or Islam, or something else.

]]> By: Darius http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-728 Darius Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:44:42 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-728 yes, but not atheism. So, to some extent at least, it does take "faith" to be an atheist. yes, but not atheism. So, to some extent at least, it does take “faith” to be an atheist.

]]> By: thainamu http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-730 thainamu Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:55:04 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-730 <i>Arguments can be made for how biblical or unbiblical these practices are, however, that is not the point here. We must first recognize that these practices are a way that the church has sought to be relevant to a particular culture; the church should not hold these practices as the only way to do church.</i> I think the ideal church has to always be our goal, while at the same time realizing that goal will likely never be fully attained: a church that is theologically true to scripture and a church where churchgoers can readily see and apply that truth. That pretty much means a church has to be "culturally relevant" if anyone is going to understand the message being put forth there. (The language used in church comes first to mind--for example, not too many folks understand Latin so the Vatican finally opted for local languages--that's being culturally relevant.) The trick comes when the group of churchgoers themselves is not homogeneous, so one culturally relevant expression in a given church doesn't work for all attenders. That's one reason we have internal church squabbles and one reason why we have so many churches to choose from. We need to be wise and mature enough to tell the difference between the form--which can change--and the meaning which shouldn't change. Arguments can be made for how biblical or unbiblical these practices are, however, that is not the point here. We must first recognize that these practices are a way that the church has sought to be relevant to a particular culture; the church should not hold these practices as the only way to do church.
I think the ideal church has to always be our goal, while at the same time realizing that goal will likely never be fully attained: a church that is theologically true to scripture and a church where churchgoers can readily see and apply that truth. That pretty much means a church has to be “culturally relevant” if anyone is going to understand the message being put forth there. (The language used in church comes first to mind–for example, not too many folks understand Latin so the Vatican finally opted for local languages–that’s being culturally relevant.)

The trick comes when the group of churchgoers themselves is not homogeneous, so one culturally relevant expression in a given church doesn’t work for all attenders. That’s one reason we have internal church squabbles and one reason why we have so many churches to choose from. We need to be wise and mature enough to tell the difference between the form–which can change–and the meaning which shouldn’t change.

]]> By: Jasen Tracy http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-731 Jasen Tracy Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:08:42 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-731 Darius, that's a major objection of mine to such quotes. It's a very poor definition of faith. Darius, that’s a major objection of mine to such quotes. It’s a very poor definition of faith.

]]> By: Darius http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-732 Darius Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:17:26 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-732 I'm not using it in the same definition as Christian faith, thus I put it in parentheses. I’m not using it in the same definition as Christian faith, thus I put it in parentheses.

]]> By: Bryan http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-733 Bryan Wed, 22 Aug 2007 04:12:55 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-733 I don't like saying atheism requires faith becasue the scriptures always speak of faith as being something good, a gift from God. What atheism requires is a suppression of faith. Romans 1 has already been quoted here; atheists on some level know the truth about God, but they repress it. This repression doesn't require faith, it mocks it. I don’t like saying atheism requires faith becasue the scriptures always speak of faith as being something good, a gift from God. What atheism requires is a suppression of faith. Romans 1 has already been quoted here; atheists on some level know the truth about God, but they repress it. This repression doesn’t require faith, it mocks it.

]]> By: Darius http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-734 Darius Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:30:58 +0000 http://zealfortruth.org/2007/08/changing-church-part-2/#comment-734 Ok, it requires the suppression of the obvious. If you don't want to term that "faith," fine by me. I am not saying it is faith as described in the Bible, but as defined in the dictionary: "belief that is not based on proof." Atheists actually takes this a step further, they believe in something that goes against the obvious or against proof (not in the scientific sense). The faith that we as Christians are to have is not so much that there is a God (since that is obvious) but that that God is Yahweh and Christ is His Son and our Savior. Ok, it requires the suppression of the obvious. If you don’t want to term that “faith,” fine by me. I am not saying it is faith as described in the Bible, but as defined in the dictionary: “belief that is not based on proof.” Atheists actually takes this a step further, they believe in something that goes against the obvious or against proof (not in the scientific sense).

The faith that we as Christians are to have is not so much that there is a God (since that is obvious) but that that God is Yahweh and Christ is His Son and our Savior.

]]>