|
Post by Maarten on Oct 4, 2009 10:14:43 GMT -5
Personal revelation makes all the difference in the world; But what if my personal revelation is that most forms of liturgy and tradition, as we know them today, might not be too bad in theory, but in practice leave too little room for the Holy Spirit to do his work? What if everybody is saying this, which makes this message into some sort of standard generic charismatic statement, because this is actually what God has to say against the church?
|
|
|
Post by Shiv on Oct 4, 2009 23:29:12 GMT -5
Personal revelation makes all the difference in the world; But what if my personal revelation is that most forms of liturgy and tradition, as we know them today, might not be too bad in theory, but in practice leave too little room for the Holy Spirit to do his work? What if everybody is saying this, which makes this message into some sort of standard generic charismatic statement, because this is actually what God has to say against the church? Because God hates being respected on the day He said to keep holy Right...
|
|
|
Post by Ferd Berfel on Oct 5, 2009 3:59:27 GMT -5
Personal revelation makes all the difference in the world; But what if my personal revelation is that most forms of liturgy and tradition, as we know them today, might not be too bad in theory, but in practice leave too little room for the Holy Spirit to do his work? What if everybody is saying this, which makes this message into some sort of standard generic charismatic statement, because this is actually what God has to say against the church? You have completely dodged my point. I suggest you read my post again. Out loud, and very slowly. If you like, I can read it out loud to you and post it in a video. Either one works for me.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Oct 5, 2009 9:52:55 GMT -5
Because God hates being respected on the day He said to keep holy Right... Because the only way to respect God on the day He said to keep holy is liturgy and tradition. Right... And Ferd, I'm sorry if I gave you the idea I didn't read your post, allow me to give a more in depth reaction. The Bible never gives a set format for church. Hell, the Bible doesn't even directly tell us to go to church; it just tells us to fellowship and worship together. Yes, and that's why I believe the way we do church now is wrong, because, as you rightly noticed, it is not at all biblical. Who says that church has to be "free" and without ritual? Man. Who says that church has to have rituals in order to worship God? Again, it's man. I would say, saying nothing about this subject, implies a lack of the discussed quality; traditions. Especially, when in 95% of the 'traditional' services I have been to, the liturgy and traditions appear to leave no room for God to work in any other way than the liturgy. God speaks to each of us in a personal way; He speaks to us through personal revelation. If God told me that worshiping Him involved wearing blue jeans every Tuesday, then I would wear blue jeans every Tuesday. That doesn't mean that everyone else has to, that just means that I am responsible for that. Depends on if God told you worshipping Him involved wearing blue jeans every Tuesday is general, or whether God told you that for you specifically. The difference in doctrine and services between churches has to do with personal revelation; some people feel that God wants it one way, and so they do that. For those people, it makes sense. Some other people feel that God wants it a different way, so they do it that way. For them, it makes perfect sense. This is where people fail, I agree with you, they believe God wants to do it one way, but God doesn't want to do it in one way, He may choose to work in different ways. These 'traditional' churches have experienced God in one way, and made their liturgy arround that way, but if God wants to do something else, their liturgy prevents God from doing that. However, it's not just the 'traditional' churches doing that, many so called 'free' churches have a solid formula as well, only they don't call it liturgy, it results in the same flaw, but most of the time more chaotic. God is. On this we agree, but apparently put this theory into practice quite differently. Because the Holy Spirit does not do anything nowadays, and certainly does not reveal what God wants to say to us through scripture. Generally I seem to agree with your observations, but not with your conclusions. I would like to add one observation of myself, which is that, as I have said before, liturgy stops God from working in another way than that the liturgy tells us God will work that service. If God doesn't want to work in the way the liturgy works, there is no room for Him to work at all, and I can assure you, God will does abide our man-made liturgies. The problem is that every time some new denomination or movement comes, they just do one thing differently, but I believe our entire concept of church has to be changed, completely; and that is my personal revelation. To back this idea, of only standardizing the very few aspects of church described in the bible, I would like to give an example where it worked out that way: the Chinese underground church; at some period where the Chinese government kicked out all the missionaries, the Chinese church was left with nothing but their bibles and God to teach them. They did church in the way the bible told them to do church, and every aspect the bible did not describe, they either didn't do, or at least didn't standardize, and I believe the current epicness of the Chinese underground church is because they did just that. Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Ferd Berfel on Oct 5, 2009 11:53:41 GMT -5
Yes, and that's why I believe the way we do church now is wrong, because, as you rightly noticed, it is not at all biblical. Again, there is no set format to church as laid down in the Bible. The whole point of it is that NO ONE is allowed to say "This is how God wants church done" because there is nowhere that God says "This is how I want church done." This has to do with your own personal revelations, and that's just fine. The whole point of personal revelation is that God has revealed it to you personally. He hasn't revealed it to anyone else. Therefore, it is not only pointless to try and convince people that God said it, it is just plain wrong. You spelled "worshiping" wrong. The idea of personal revelation is that God only tells it to YOU, and therefore YOU are the only one held accountable for that revelation. God doesn't tell people "Hey, EVERYONE needs to wear blue jeans and worship", He says "I want YOU to wear blue jeans and worship." The only revelations that should be applied to everyone are the ones that are explicitly laid out in scripture. Because the Bible doesn't give a set format for church (surprise, surprise), personal revelation takes over. Some people have had the revelation from God that He wants to be worshiped in a certain way, and others have the revelation to worship in a different way. People with the same personal revelation will tend to congregate and worship together. That results in denominations. You have (once again) completely missed the point. I said that God reveals to certain people that He wants to be worshiped in a certain way. The reality of it is quite simple: God reveals to many people many different kinds of worship. This is because God wants to be worshiped in many ways. If God wants to work in different ways, why would He NOT want to work through a traditional, liturgical church? By saying that God can only work in a certain way around a liturgy, you're putting Him in a box. God does not belong in a box. He is incomprehensible by nature, that's the whole beauty of this! God can work in any way that He chooses through liturgy. He has revealed to certain people that He wants to be worshiped in that way. To those people, that is the best way to worship because they get more out of that than they ever would in your idea of the "perfect church". So if God is the one who says "This is how church should always be", then why doesn't He just say that to everyone? Certainly you don't think that God is telling YOU to tell everyone that church is best in a certain way... do you? Because if so, you're making one of the gravest mistakes you can make; you're turning a personal revelation into a doctrine. Personal revelation is personal for a reason: You get more out of a "non-traditional" church because that's the way you are. Therefore, God has revealed to you that you need to attend a "non-traditional" church. That is so that you can worship God to the best of your ability, but also so that God can speak to you in a way that He knows you will listen. Another person might be able to get more out of liturgy and tradition than they ever would out of a "non-traditional" church. Therefore, God has revealed to them that they need to worship using those rituals and beliefs. This is for the same exact reason that God wants you to worship in a different way than they do. It has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine. You are not able to understand it, because you've tried other kinds of worship and still are unable to communicate with God except through the way that YOU communicate best. I can guarantee you that if someone who went to a liturgical church tried your forms of worship, they'd get just as much out of it as you did out of tradition and liturgy. You do not understand it, you're not supposed to understand it. You can never know the hearts of these people, therefore it is absolutely wrong for you to say "Liturgy and tradition is an inferior method of worship." To you, this is true. However, according to other people's personal revelation, tradition works best. It can go both ways. Through both methods, God is being glorified equally.
|
|
|
Post by clareabel on Oct 5, 2009 12:01:10 GMT -5
Josh, worshipping is correct in English.
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Oct 5, 2009 12:17:13 GMT -5
Ferd, I think I did finally understand you, at least, that is, I think I know why we arn't understanding each other. You do not believe in continuous revelation, and I do.
|
|
|
Post by Ferd Berfel on Oct 5, 2009 13:16:55 GMT -5
Ferd, I think I did finally understand you, at least, that is, I think I know why we arn't understanding each other. You do not believe in continuous revelation, and I do. Nailed it. I figured that out just a second or two ago.
|
|
|
Post by Shiv on Oct 5, 2009 16:45:02 GMT -5
My point is, if you're gonna go to church, go to one that isn't half-assed, or don't go at all
And at this point, generally all protestant churches are half-assed and pathetic, especially the more "relevant" and "open" they try to be
I don't need a church to keep my faith in line on its own, but I understand that the purpose of church is to congregate and worship, and generally pay reverence to God
And the more orthodox and liturgical you go, the less room there is for an annoying "pastor" to give s**tty anecdotes about "amusing" things that happened to him during the week that somehow relate to his "message", and other frivolous s**t in general
The entire Anglican Eucharist paints a more beautiful picture of the gospel than any pastor has while trying to make it "relevant" to modern lay-people's lives
There's just little to no integrity to anything relating to protestantism these days, and basically no real spiritual need for the whole thing in general
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 5, 2009 21:01:07 GMT -5
My point is, if you're gonna go to church, go to one that isn't half-assed, or don't go at all And at this point, generally all protestant churches are half-assed and pathetic, especially the more "relevant" and "open" they try to be I don't need a church to keep my faith in line on its own, but I understand that the purpose of church is to congregate and worship, and generally pay reverence to God And the more orthodox and liturgical you go, the less room there is for an annoying "pastor" to give s**tty anecdotes about "amusing" things that happened to him during the week that somehow relate to his "message", and other frivolous s**t in general The entire Anglican Eucharist paints a more beautiful picture of the gospel than any pastor has while trying to make it "relevant" to modern lay-people's lives There's just little to no integrity to anything relating to protestantism these days, and basically no real spiritual need for the whole thing in general I agree, especially on the point of leaving less room for people to do stupid stuff. It doesn't always occur, but I would say the frequency is far greater in a Protestant church. Especially when you get people who think that a pastor shouldn't recycle his messages, or have to take up more than thirty minutes but less than an hour.
|
|
|
Post by Shiv on Oct 6, 2009 1:52:01 GMT -5
The only truly good experiences I've had were in more orthodox churches
Everything else sucked
|
|
|
Post by Shiv on Oct 6, 2009 3:56:05 GMT -5
My friend Levi and I are talking about this subject and he said some things I can back wholeheartedly:
theaatheist (4:50:21 AM): I'm a sacerdotalist, and if Christianity is true then it definitely contains an episcopal structure of authority with a priesthood. And Scripture and history both dictate that ecumenical councils were used to define doctrine, and anything outside that was heresy. It's the facts. People can biitch and moan about how they think it's wrong or whatever. I could care less about their personal opinions. It's just arrogant and anachronistic. theaatheist (4:51:11 AM): I'd be an atheist before I'd be an independent protestant. theaatheist (4:51:42 AM): Because in my mind, their religion that they call Christianity is completely fictitious if they actually believe it is Christianity. theaatheist (4:52:22 AM): We don't like the grimy details and f**k ups in history...so we'll just write it off because we are lazy, and don't want people to accuse of things.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Oct 6, 2009 10:37:51 GMT -5
I think it's funny that the same people who are trying to write off "non-traditional" services as "not-Christian" have no problem with challenging traditional views of Christian morality, such as don't have sex before you're traditionally married.
Sounds to me as if everyone should just do what makes them feel good!
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 6, 2009 10:49:23 GMT -5
That's not a traditional view, though. In tradition, the wedding is not what marries a couple. That's a recent idea.
Also, I don't see anyone trying to say a non-liturgical service is not Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Oct 6, 2009 10:57:19 GMT -5
I don't understand how that is not a traditional view. Besides, there were other examples I could have used.
I also see plenty of implications that non-traditional services are not Christian, or at least, not as Christian.
|
|