Christianity Is Broken, but Can Be Fixed

I haven't read all this thread, so if I'm repeating a point someone has made, somebody please correct me.I can agree to a point that there should be something demonstrably different about Christians in loving one another that isn't always demonstrated. I also agree with those who say that there are many people who call themselves Christians who aren't. I also agree that Christians continue to sin -- but as long as they lament it and fight it they can know they are Christians. I also agree that it isn't always easy to tell who is a Christian and who isn't, but like Iano I know some who definitely are, and on this board he's one, and Buzsaw and Randman. How do I know? Because of what they believe and what they say about the Bible and about Christ. They know they are saved by grace through faith in Christ's death in their place. That is basic. If that is not believed, no matter how loving your lifestyle it's not in Christ.All that I think has already been said.But beyond that I'd like to question the premise. You can't say that the good opinion of outsiders is always a criterion for what true Christianity is, as in their saying your lifestyle is "the way it ought to be." Jesus told us the world will hate us. The world loves its own so being appreciated by the world MAY BE reason to question one's Christian life rather than the opposite. This attitude continues in every generation. It was expressed by the early Romans and Greeks against the early church and it is still expressed. Scripture is clear that if we don't encounter this attitude something is wrong.

The gospel IS the atonement in our place. As I said, it's basic. That means it's where you start, not that that's all there is to it. If you don't have that belief then you aren't a Christian. It certainly doesn't imply that all who think they believe it really do. The test IS works based on faith. But works without that belief isn't the gospel.

Funny, He was the Lamb of God, the sacrificial lamb God Himself provided, just as He had provided a ram in the place of Isaac, typifying the greater sacrifice to come. When the Israelites brought their sacrifices, the idea was that their sins were on the animals' head. This is particularly clearly described in relation to the scapegoat. The sacrifices in other words were indeed killed in the place of sinners, to atone for their sins which otherwise sinners will ultimately pay for themselves. The term "propitiation" in the following certainly suggests the payment for my sins by His death which is the same as His dying in my place: And just because one facet of salvation is not mentioned in one place doesn't mean it doesn't apply. The Bible has to be read as a whole. Oh it's thoroughly scriptural and well argued by good preachers from scripture. Well, I can believe that some people are saved who don't understand all the particulars of their salvation, but if someone outright denies that Jesus died in our place, as you appear to do, I would have to think you have a false gospel. Yes it is where you start. You don't seem to be aware that "easy believism" is soundly denounced by many churches, making your remarks a straw man. Obedience is strongly emphasized in the context of Jesus' death in our place. Where are you getting the idea that all Protestantism is "ineffective?" What all are you counting over what period of time? What does "faith in Christ" mean to you?

I realized a better answer might be that they were all Jews who lived the life of the Temple including the daily sacrifices and the many they brought for their own atonement. It was to the Gentiles that Paul wrote the instruction concerning the blood sacrifice for our sins, to people who hadn't been brought up in it.

What you are saying is very confusing. Ray Comfort certainly disagrees with you about what the gospel is and I appreciate his preaching enormously. Also Jim Elliot, very inspiring. He was a missionary and a critic of the weak American church both but where did he say what you claim about abandoning the American churches hoping to start something better in Ecuador? His widow Elisabeth Elliott is still a strong voice for the committed Christian life. But all the strong Christians are such critics. Tozer and Pink are two of my favorites, always critical of the condition of the church. Yet all you have listed preach the death of Christ in our place. They also preach a strong view of the Law and exhortations to obedience.{AbE: Also, since you admire Charles Finney and object to the way people misuse the gospel of salvation through Jesus' death by slighting the necessity of obedience, you should know that Charles Finney is "credited" with starting this trend to "easy believism" that is characterized by the call to "make a decision for Christ." I'm not sure how this relates to your view of Finney, but this came about because of his belief that a supernatural work is not needed in salvation, that mere human power is capable of "making a decision for Christ." This has led to the situation you are rightly criticizing, of thousands of professions of faith that don't bear fruit in the end.}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-08-2005 07:31 AM

He was famous for introducing the method of requiring people to make a decision. {AbE: which implies that human will is all that is needed.} Seems to me I recall reading that in his bio. In any case this is what I hear said against him. {AbE: And also that he said that revival can be brought about merely by the proper exercise of means, implying that it is not a sovereign supernatural act of God. This has led to the empty "revivalism" that you see in some churches, that is little but human-originated emotion.) I've started his journal but haven't found him to be critical of anything but himself so far, though clearly his level of seriousness would put him at odds with lightminded Christians. Good, perhaps we will end up agreeing on a few things. Of course. But you don't seem to recognize how many are on your side about that. And you do appear to be saying that we are NOT saved by Christ's sacrifice in our place and that is simply wrong. I agree and that's well put. I agree. I have had the same problems with supposed believers you are talking about. If this had been made clear at the beginning I would not have been opposing you. But if you really do believe that we are NOT saved by the blood of Christ then I still have a problem with what you are saying.I have struggled with these issues from the beginning, been appalled at the attitudes I found in the churches. And still find. Good points. Much, thanks. But I wonder if you aren't throwing out the whole gospel of justification just because you see that too many make that their entire theology at the expense of the commands about how to live.{AbE: In saying all this, by the way, I'm not saying I think I live to the commands as I should, I'm simply acknowledging that I consider them the true Christian life and hope to make my way back to that life. It's always a help to hear someone else uphold them}.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-08-2005 09:13 AM

You make many good points though I haven't had time to think it all through as carefully as it deserves and may not for a few days, depends. Funny how I've disagreed with most of your posts I've seen in the past. Well, no, I remember some older posts I did agree with very strongly, but still there were some that I couldn't agree with at all. This is just an impression at the moment as I don't recall much of the subject matter.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-09-2005 12:09 PM

This is a very interesting point of view I have to admit. My own experience is that as soon as I believed in the existence of the God of the Bible I was in love with that God. I read psalm 119 and fell in love with the God whose Law inspired such adoration from David. It was some time after that before I understood what Jesus had done. I can't say that I've ever felt moved to love by the knowledge of His work on the cross. I've often felt guilty and doubted my salvation because of this lack. I believe it, certainly, but it has never had the power to engender love. I love God simply because He is lovable and that alone inspired me to give my whole life to Him. Unfortunately over the years I've lost that inspiration and been futilely trying to get it back. I know that His grace is required in order for me to love Him at all but that is theoretical knowledge. This I'm not sure of. Seems to me the Puritans have a powerful record of inspiring such converts. There are many who write convincingly of the deep love they personally have felt in response to the cross. Randman said "when they realize in their heart." It doesn't happen for those who only have an intellectual grasp of the idea. Certainly many hear the gospel who don't respond to it. Parable of the seed. I like this picture a great deal but don't know how to assess it yet. Hard to see a way to bring this about. I have a big problem with this idea of apostles beyond the original twelve. The charismatic Kansas City Prophets with their emphasis on contemporary apostles have gone off in wrong directions it seems to me. If we are all disciples, all priests, we don't have to bring up this concept of apostles.You are right that people have been escaping from the churches for years, because of their capitulation to the world, but in my case the exodus was from the charismatic movement so anything that brings back the errors of that movement, such as the emphasis on apostles, is not going to be a solution for me. In many cases the refugees remain outside the churches and don't find a solution to the problem. I eventually found a church where I like the preaching a great deal because it is not the soft mushy worldly "churchianity" at all, but there is still something deeply lacking. 90% of that may be my own fault however.{AbE: There is a BIG risk in this discussion of overlooking differences in how we use words. "Churchianity" for instance is used by many in many different ways. It is used to condemn all Christianity by nonChristians for one thing.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 10:10 AM

It is true that it wasn't exactly His death in our place that the apostles proclaimed, but I'm not sure what to do with that information in the end. There are plenty of teachers out there these days who are correcting the trend to easy believism by preaching the Lordship of Christ, yet also preach the fundamental gospel in terms of salvation through Christ's sacrifice. I will need to think a lot more about this.I can't tell for sure if we are concerned about the same problem exactly. I did look up Rose Creek Village after Randman said he did and have to say it is very cult-like. Their own website seems to play down Christ as a matter of fact, but includes a lot that sounds pretty New-Agey to me. This is not unrecognized, however. In good churches it is preached about, and often the unregenerate are directly exhorted to come to Christ in the preaching. Also, we are told by Christ himself that the church will include both wheat and tares to the end.What is really bad, however, is that some churches actually seek the unregenerate, the "seeker-friendly" churches that intentionally water down the gospel so as not to "offend" anyone, often megachurches that are like small cities with their social services of all kinds. If you aim to please the worldly they will stay worldly. We may be having some problems here with language, but again this sort of thing is far from unknown and is often the subject of good preaching. Often in Reformed churches, by the way, Charles Finney is identified as the source of this situation which has filled the churches with the unregenerate. They are called "carnal Christians" in some circles, as if there could be any such thing. For the most part churches of different doctrines do recognize one another as Christian brothers and sisters, however, as long as the doctrines are not outside the basic confessions of faith. This is a very attractive idea, and if I hadn't looked up Rose Creek Village I would have understood it in my own way, but that community doesn't exemplify what it seems to me it should mean.I found this message board discussion about Rose Creek Village, which reflects what you say about having many enemies:http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/530.html?1129047963Unfortunately all the cults complain of having many enemies, simply because they are rightly criticized by the orthodox churches. I've noticed that cultists, such as the Mormons, justify themselves partly by exaggerating the faults of the orthodox churches, tarring them with a broad brush, quite unaware that what IS true in what they are saying is already recognized by the orthodox churches and countered there as well. {AbE: also, they play up their way of life as exemplary Christians despite the fact that their doctrine excludes them from the faith. It is true that the Mormons often live exemplary lives for instance.} Again, though there is much to agree with in what you say, there is also this misrepresentation of those who trust in Christ's death for them, who are far from merely "believing a fact about Christ."This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 11:18 AM

This is just too broad a brush to apply to Christianity as a whole, and despite what I can recognize as true in it, there is a complete lack of recognition that it doesn't describe quite a few churches. It's simply honest because I avoid the social aspects of the churches, partly due to past experiences, going for the preaching, which really is excellent. There is plenty of exhortation to fellowship but I don't want and don't deal well with fellowship that is just socializing, even if the people are genuine Christians, and I believe they are. {AbE: Many in the church feel they have found a real family in this church, but unfortunately there are just as many others who haven't. I've run across this in more than one church -- it is "family" for those for whom it is family, and those for whom it isn't don't really get noticed. There is no easy solution to this.}Yes, I feel a need for something that simply does not exist. I have found that I am often initially attracted to groups that are similar to yours, that promise a kind of community support I wish I had, but then I discover the cultic doctrine in them. I've had more than one rather intense online dialogue with people who are participants in Christian communities, that end up revealing their cultic nature in the end. Very attractive ideas about the Christian life that in reality end up being something else.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 12:11 PM

Very interesting comparison between the gospel as we hear it and the way the apostles preached it. I've half-noticed something along these lines myself.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 12:15 PM

That helps to make a distinction I could accept, and the reference to Barnabas also. I'm simply used to hearing the emphasis on apostles coming from the charismatics who have gone so far out in wrong directions on so many things, which I personally experienced in a very disappointing and rather traumatic period of my life as a Christian, that I am geared to view it with a very jaundiced eye.

Are you familiar with Steve Schlissel who pastors Messiah's Congregation in Brooklyn? http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=sch...
It's a Reformed Presbyterian church. I enjoy his preaching very much, and he often exhorts Christians to live near one another, referring to the Orthodox Jewish communities around New York as examples. It seems like a basically good idea to me, but if it becomes a Thing with a Leader rather than simply Christians wanting to be among Christians I could see it becoming a problem and even cultic.{AbE: Interesting. I just listened to the first sermon on the webpage linked above ("Curtains.") Schlissel is not talking about community but he is talking about how the Bible is not theology but a love letter, and how so many have been misled to a belief in Christ that is merely an assent rather than a giving of the life -- in the context of exhorting us to witness to the Jews.}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 02:32 PM

I think we touched on this before about Schlissel, but can you please explain Dominion Theology to me? He sounds quite orthodox Reformed Presbyterian to me. I simply like some of his preaching, having heard a series of his on the book of Acts on Christian radio, in which he did a great job of illuminating the Jewish background of the taking of the gospel from Jerusalem out to the Gentiles. Can you refer me to a discernment ministry comment on him? If you can't I can probably google it but maybe you know of a specific criticism of him somewhere?{AbE: I'm not any kind of millennialist yet, having heard preaching on all of them and finding too many unanswered questions left in each of them. At the moment I believe in a very noisy public trumpet-announced Second Coming of Christ which is simultaneous with the Rapture of the church, and not a silent pre-trib Rapture.}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 03:54 PM

I want to answer this more pointedly. I don't think Christianity as such is broken at all {AbE: Which isn't the same thing as not having lots of problems}. As usual it belongs to the few, not the many. This has always been the case. The early Church was as divided by heresies and odd doctrinal issues as anything we see today. The world is hostile to the real thing and paints it as evil, so the real evil in the counterfeits is detectable only by the Spirit, and we aren't all given the same discernment by the Spirit and we don't all have the same sensitivity to the Spirit's movings. The most public Christians are sometimes not the real thing. Always there are tares among the wheat, always there are counterfeits, and these seem to be proliferating in abundance just in the last few decades -- but maybe it only seems that way to me since I lived through them. There is every kind of "Christian" theology these days, sometimes it seems one for every individual.It seems to be a wish perennially revived among Christians to get back to some vision of the purity of the New Testament church but then it turns out that there are many different ideas about what that means and often they do simply turn into cults. Your focus on community is just one of many versions of New Testament Christianity. The charismatics focus on the gifts of the Spirit as the key. The Mormons are sure the entire Church went apostate in the first or second century and is only now recovered in themselves. Etc.So while I'm very aware of the problems in the churches these days that you are concerned with, and appreciate those both dead and alive who shine the clearest light on the true path (Tozer, Pink, MacArthur, Elliott, Comfort among many others), I'm not so sure there is any particular solution we should be seeking except the usual attempt to keep our own hearts focused rightly.I do appreciate what you have said about the gospel of the apostles and that needs further thought.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-10-2005 06:17 PM