NationStates Jolt Archive

I already began this thread several days ago, but it was closed. I think it was because of the name (which had been "Another Annoying Religion Thread"). So, I'm trying again with a different name. I think this is an interesting subject, so I would like to see it discussed in depth. My first attempt lasted only until the second page had begun.

I want to know your opinions or assumptions (for those of you who have not considered it).

There are four types of Church government:

Episcopalian: the power comes from the top down, examples are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, most Methodists, most Lutherans, most Anglicans and Episcopalians, and pretty much any other church with bishops.

Presbyterian: the power flows up and then back down, presbyterian church government is a Christian republic (not a Christian democracy), the people elect the wise, spiritually mature, knowledgeable, etc. to rule over them, King George called the American Revolution "that Presbyterian Revolt", examples include Presbyterians and most Reformed churches (This is my pick).

Congregational: the power flows up, the church conventions agree on what an individual church has to do to be a part of the convention, but everything else is up to the individual church, examples include most Baptists.

Independent: churches aren't organized beyond alliances to share material or send missionaries, etc.

What kind do you go to? Which would you prefer to go to? Do you not care? If you cared where would you go?

I'm Catholic.

And that was a bad start.

I'm Catholic.

And that was a bad start.

Are you referring to something I did, or something you did?

Ew, no.

Are you referring to something I did, or something you did?

Starting with "This was once deleted, but I'll try again"

Your religion shouldn't be based off of an organization telling you what is true. You, just as well as anyone on Earth, can decide for yourself what happens when you die, or if there is a God, or whatever. No one else. Not your parents, not a pastor, not a swami, not the Pope, not anyone.

I voted independant, because I guess thats the closest. There should be just generic buildings where people of all faiths go to shares ideas and try to bring each other into the ceremonies. Have a meditation session, recieve communion, then talk about the possibility of there not being a soul. That would educate a lot of people.

Starting with "This was once deleted, but I'll try again"

Well, I couldn't understand why it would be deleted, so I asked and someone suggested it might have been the name. I had intended it to be a slight attempt at humor, but I could see that it can be offensive, for lack of a better word. I really can't understand what would be wrong in the content, so I tried again with a different name.

If they close it again, I'll know it's the content, though I have utterly no idea why there is a problem with the topic.

don't care about a churches structure myself (being Agnostic will do that to you) but I would rather have individual churches with a central authority that wields little power so that things like gay marriage can go ahead and such (yes I am saying libertarianism might actually be good in this case)

I would however want to leave it up to the actual religion to run how it wants

I would attend none of them, but I appreciate the double politeness in the poll.

VIVA SOCIALIST LIBERTARIANISM!

That explains my view of society's needs pretty well (including churches).

Being a montheist (unsure where I fit due to the fact that I have no knowledge of theology), I feel that loose religion is better than a "fundie"'s philosophy (unless there is such a thing as a combo of the two... :confused: ) due to the fact that some of the stuff in religious bibles is pure allegory and not to be taken literally (what is what, I have no idea), so literal translation makes for a bad result... and we should all know of which results I speak.

Congregational: the power flows up, the church conventions agree on what an individual church has to do to be a part of the convention, but everything else is up to the individual church, examples include most Baptists.
I am a southern baptist and my church is a member of the SBC, we only have to agree on basic doctrinal truths but other than that we can do whatever we want, we like that. We also like that our missionaries are taken care of, and the cool stuff that being a member of the convention allows, like free paintball and moonbounces. ;)

I support the presbyterian system first and foremost because I think it best reflects the system used by the early Church in the book of Acts.

I think the presbyterian system prevents tyranny by the one. For example, the Pope has no one to hold him accountable. If he does something wrong or proclaims some heresy, there is no one beside him or over him (speaking of fellow men, of course) to correct him. Theologically, I'm Reformed/Calvinist, so I don't believe that the Pope is infallible, no matter what he speaks on or what position he speaks from. The presbyterian system prevents this by having the spiritually mature holding each other to account. It is more likely that one mature Christian will stumble than that many mature Christians will stumble.

Also, I think that the conectual systems (the presbyterian and episcopalian systems) are much better at being able to discipline their members, leaders, and individual churches than the congregational and independent systems.

I consider religion to be a very personal thing. As such, I think independent is the way to go. No human beings - not even a group of my peers - can tell me what I should and shouldn't believe.

Sleepiscalian.

I support the presbyterian system first and foremost because I think it best reflects the system used by the early Church in the book of Acts.

I think the presbyterian system prevents tyranny by the one. For example, the Pope has no one to hold him accountable. If he does something wrong or proclaims some heresy, there is no one beside him or over him (speaking of fellow men, of course) to correct him. Theologically, I'm Reformed/Calvinist, so I don't believe that the Pope is infallible, no matter what he speaks on or what position he speaks from. The presbyterian system prevents this by having the spiritually mature holding each other to account. It is more likely that one mature Christian will stumble than that many mature Christians will stumble.

Also, I think that the conectual systems (the presbyterian and episcopalian systems) are much better at being able to discipline their members, leaders, and individual churches than the congregational and independent systems.
why is it the churches responsibility or right to discipline people past what we read about in 2 Corinthians which is better handled by a small group from your church?

I was rasied (baptized and confirmed) Episcopalian, but I don't like the way that decisions are made in that or the Catholic Church, so I voted for your description of Presbyterian churches. Though I personally mistrust organized religions.

why is it the churches responsibility or right to discipline people past what we read about in 2 Corinthians which is better handled by a small group from your church?

It is the responsibility of all believers to hold other believers to account. That is best done in small groups. However, when leaders are leading people astray or when groups of believers (like entire churches) are not doing what they ought to be or doing what they not ought to be, then you need people or institutions over them to discipline them.

Whether that is the way it ought to be or not is debatable, but people are more likely to listen or respond to those in authority over them, not their peers. Sad, especially in the Church, but that's the way it is.

Of course, if one feels that the Spirit is leading one against the decisions of those in authority over him or her, one should follow the Spirit. If that's the case, though, one should be willing to be disciplined, though unjustly.

In response to your appeal to 2nd Corinthians, I believe that's speaking to accountability partners and the like. If you look at 1st Corinthians 5:13, Paul says "God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'" This command was in response to an unrepentant man in an incestuous relationship. He refused to repent of his sin and it was beginning to poison the whole church. Therefore, he was to be excommunicated. Oh no! Not that dreaded word! Protestants can't do that! Yes, we can: we are commanded to do so. Certainly, it is not a small body of believers within the church that is to make this decision, unless that body is working over the church on behalf of the church, which is basically the idea of presbyterianism.

It is the responsibility of all believers to hold other believers to account. That is best done in small groups. However, when leaders are leading people astray or when groups of believers (like entire churches) are not doing what they ought to be or doing what they not ought to be, then you need people or institutions over them to discipline them.

Whether that is the way it ought to be or not is debatable, but people are more likely to listen or respond to those in authority over them, not their peers. Sad, especially in the Church, but that's the way it is.

Of course, if one feels that the Spirit is leading one against the decisions of those in authority over him or her, one should follow the Spirit. If that's the case, though, one should be willing to be disciplined, though unjustly.
how do you know what they "ought to be doing" and what type of discipline do you recomend? what types of actions need discipline?

how do you know what they "ought to be doing" and what type of discipline do you recomend? what types of actions need discipline?

Sorry, I edited while you were responding. See if my last post answered your question.

In response to your appeal to 2nd Corinthians, I believe that's speaking to accountability partners and the like. If you look at 1st Corinthians 5:13, Paul says "God judges those outside. 'Purge the evil person from among you.'" This command was in response to an unrepentant man in an incestuous relationship. He refused to repent of his sin and it was beginning to poison the whole church. Therefore, he was to be excommunicated. Oh no! Not that dreaded word! Protestants can't do that! Yes, we can: we are commanded to do so. Certainly, it is not a small body of believers within the church that is to make this decision, unless that body is working over the church on behalf of the church, which is basically the idea of presbyterianism.

I don't like the term excommunicated, I prefer disfellowshiped (you know if I could remember how to spell it) it's not like the church is taking anything away from you or kicking you out of God's family or anything, they are just taking you off their roll books, it's much less permanent.

It's not something that needs to be handed down from on high either, if you look at the passage it says to go with a few friends to talk to them first, then you can bring it in front of the church, it absolutely is a private matter in the church not something where you report sins to the "people in charge" and wait for them to hand down an order. It's not meant to be a means of punishment, accountability isn't so that everyone is good, it's so you can help people grow in Christ.

When I discipline my children I take them aside and try to help them understand what they did wrong and how to remedy it, I try to help them to behave by being supportive. It's the same thing in the church, I don't call the cops on my kids hoping that someone else will discipline them, I take care of it in the family, just like a church is a family, you don't need outsiders to come in for every little thing and hand out punishment. Discipline is all about making disciples, not about punishment..........God is the only true judge, he is the only one just enough to judge someone's true actions, we can help until we can't help anymore.

I'm Baptist and have been since I was three.

I don't like the term excommunicated, I prefer disfellowshiped (you know if I could remember how to spell it) it's not like the church is taking anything away from you or kicking you out of God's family or anything, they are just taking you off their roll books, it's much less permanent.

It's not something that needs to be handed down from on high either, if you look at the passage it says to go with a few friends to talk to them first, then you can bring it in front of the church, it absolutely is a private matter in the church not something where you report sins to the "people in charge" and wait for them to hand down an order. It's not meant to be a means of punishment, accountability isn't so that everyone is good, it's so you can help people grow in Christ.

When I discipline my children I take them aside and try to help them understand what they did wrong and how to remedy it, I try to help them to behave by being supportive. It's the same thing in the church, I don't call the cops on my kids hoping that someone else will discipline them, I take care of it in the family, just like a church is a family, you don't need outsiders to come in for every little thing and hand out punishment. Discipline is all about making disciples, not about punishment..........God is the only true judge, he is the only one just enough to judge someone's true actions, we can help until we can't help anymore.

Yes! I totally agree: the purpose of discipline is to cause growth. But if the Church is a family, that leads to several parallels.

First, if God is the Father, then there must be big siblings. These people have more authority than the younger siblings. This is, of course, assuming they have grown normally. Just as you wouldn't put an autistic teen in charge of a "normal" preteen, so you wouldn't put a heretic in charge of anyone, no matter how long they've been part of the Church. The responsibility of the sibling is to help the parent. In the absence of the parent, they have the authority to discipline the other children. Of course, the older siblings don't have authority to discipline the other children to the extent that the parent does, but they still have the authority.

Second, discipline is nothing more than abuse without explanation. No one has authority to abuse. So it would be sin on our part to abuse, or give discipline without explanation. And, of course, some sins require harsher punishment in this life. A murderer is probably going to be derocked, no matter how repentent he is, though he may not be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. If he refused to repent, he might be disfellowshipped. But what should be done either way is that there be an explanation for why any discipline is required, why this degree of discipline was used, and what is required for the discipline to end. Otherwise, it is merely abuse and we would be in sin.

Third, nothing is being handed down from on high (in the presbyterian system) that was not handed up. The members elected the elders to rule over them and they may refuse to elect them in the future if they feel that a particular elder has abused his (or in some denominations her) power.

Fourth, you choose to use a less harsh word for excommunication: disfellowship. That is fine, because the principle in both is the same. If your church disfellowshipped someone, they would probably be careful about letting the person back into the membership of the church. The same is true with excommunication. Because the Roman Catholic Church abused this form of discipline, by not even allowing the excommunicant to enter the church building, people think it is worse than it is.

Fifth, we are told to report the sin to the people in charge, if it is not repented of. I can't think of where (Matthew, maybe) Jesus says that you are to approach a brother who has done wrong, then take two or three elders (or leaders if your church doesn't have elders), then take it to the church if the person refuses to repent.

Fianlly, I hope in my posts on this thread that I've made clear that I believe there is a difference between accountability and discipline. Accountability is found between two people or a small group of people. Praying for each other, reminding each other of sins and traps, and perhaps intervening are the main aspects of holding someone to account. If someone admits lustful thoughts, there is no need to go to the pastor. If the person admits adultery, isn't sorry for it, and is an associate pastor, you should go to the pastor and there should be some investigation on his part which might lead to discipline.

Accountability is leading to and reminding of the need for repentence.

Discipline is for the unrepentent and the repentent who have done things that God has said require discipline in this life. In the case of the repentent, we are not to discipline beyond what God has said we are to.

Yes! I totally agree: the purpose of discipline is to cause growth. But if the Church is a family, that leads to several parallels.

First, if God is the Father, then there must be big siblings. These people have more authority than the younger siblings. This is, of course, assuming they have grown normally. Just as you wouldn't put an autistic teen in charge of a "normal" preteen, so you wouldn't put a heretic in charge of anyone, no matter how long they've been part of the Church. The responsibility of the sibling is to help the parent. In the absence of the parent, they have the authority to discipline the other children. Of course, the older siblings don't have authority to discipline the other children to the extent that the parent does, but they still have the authority.

Second, discipline is nothing more than abuse without explanation. No one has authority to abuse. So it would be sin on our part to abuse, or give discipline without explanation. And, of course, some sins require harsher punishment in this life. A murderer is probably going to be derocked, no matter how repentent he is, though he may not be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. If he refused to repent, he might be disfellowshipped. But what should be done either way is that there be an explanation for why any discipline is required, why this degree of discipline was used, and what is required for the discipline to end. Otherwise, it is merely abuse and we would be in sin.

Third, nothing is being handed down from on high (in the presbyterian system) that was not handed up. The members elected the elders to rule over them and they may refuse to elect them in the future if they feel that a particular elder has abused his (or in some denominations her) power.

Fourth, you choose to use a less harsh word for excommunication: disfellowship. That is fine, because the principle in both is the same. If your church disfellowshipped someone, they would probably be careful about letting the person back into the membership of the church. The same is true with excommunication. Because the Roman Catholic Church abused this form of discipline, by not even allowing the excommunicant to enter the church building, people think it is worse than it is.

Fifth, we are told to report the sin to the people in charge, if it is not repented of. I can't think of where (Matthew, maybe) Jesus says that you are to approach a brother who has done wrong, then take two or three elders (or leaders if your church doesn't have elders), then take it to the church if the person refuses to repent.

Fianlly, I hope in my posts on this thread that I've made clear that I believe there is a difference between accountability and discipline. Accountability is found between two people or a small group of people. Praying for each other, reminding each other of sins and traps, and perhaps intervening are the main aspects of holding someone to account. If someone admits lustful thoughts, there is no need to go to the pastor. If the person admits adultery, isn't sorry for it, and is an associate pastor, you should go to the pastor and there should be some investigation on his part which might lead to discipline.

Accountability is leading to and reminding of the need for repentence.

Discipline is for the unrepentent and the repentent who have done things that God has said require discipline in this life. In the case of the repentent, we are not to discipline beyond what God has said we are to.

I guess we are going to have different views, I don't really think past sins should keep people out of church if they have repented, really that doesn't even make sense, I mean Paul killed how many people and he still wrote nearly all of the new testament.

I think taking someone off the rolls of the church is a very serious thing and it shouldn't happen often at all, in fact the only time it should happen is when the person is doing more harm to the church than the church is able to help.

I really don't think it's a Christian's place no matter what position they are in to go around punishing people for their various shortcomings.

First, if God is the Father, then there must be big siblings. These people have more authority than the younger siblings. This is, of course, assuming they have grown normally. Just as you wouldn't put an autistic teen in charge of a "normal" preteen, so you wouldn't put a heretic in charge of anyone, no matter how long they've been part of the Church. The responsibility of the sibling is to help the parent. In the absence of the parent, they have the authority to discipline the other children. Of course, the older siblings don't have authority to discipline the other children to the extent that the parent does, but they still have the authority.

God is not personally telling anyone who is right or wrong, and who is a heretic and who is not, unless you are to believe some pretty crazy people. It is up whoever sets out to figure it out. You have the same ability to learn from whatever religious text as anyone else.

Don't compare people with differing views to autistic children, BTW.


Second, discipline is nothing more than abuse without explanation. No one has authority to abuse. So it would be sin on our part to abuse, or give discipline without explanation. And, of course, some sins require harsher punishment in this life. A murderer is probably going to be derocked, no matter how repentent he is, though he may not be excommunicated or disfellowshipped. If he refused to repent, he might be disfellowshipped. But what should be done either way is that there be an explanation for why any discipline is required, why this degree of discipline was used, and what is required for the discipline to end. Otherwise, it is merely abuse and we would be in sin.

Fourth, you choose to use a less harsh word for excommunication: disfellowship. That is fine, because the principle in both is the same. If your church disfellowshipped someone, they would probably be careful about letting the person back into the membership of the church. The same is true with excommunication. Because the Roman Catholic Church abused this form of discipline, by not even allowing the excommunicant to enter the church building, people think it is worse than it is.

No punishment or discipline should be given by a church. A government can, because it has nothing to do with religion, but a church that claims to be Christian? What happened to forgiveness and "Judge not lest ye be judged"? Only God can judge. A church should be a sanctuary for anyone, especially criminals. Jesus spent a lot of time with people you would have turned away with this. Religion should be open for anyone to better themselves, not just those who feel they are righteous.

More than anyone, I would think, a person who believes in God and commits murder would need the church. He needs someone to help him through so rough a time in his life, not to be outcast.

Discipline is for the unrepentent and the repentent who have done things that God has said require discipline in this life. In the case of the repentent, we are not to discipline beyond what God has said we are to.

Does that mean that those that are not repentant are to be disciplined by Man's will?

Oh, and I'm Irish Catholic, and a proud supporter of the Epsicopalian organizational style.

I don't really think past sins should keep people out of church if they have repented, really that doesn't even make sense, I mean Paul killed how many people and he still wrote nearly all of the new testament.

I think taking someone off the rolls of the church is a very serious thing and it shouldn't happen often at all, in fact the only time it should happen is when the person is doing more harm to the church than the church is able to help.

You either misunderstand me or I didn't make myself clear.

Excommunication = taking a member off the roles

If the person repents, they are to be "recommunicated" if that word exists. I'm sorry if I confused you as to what my position is.

Don't compare people with differing views to autistic children, BTW.

I was merely saying that the heretic is incapable of leading the Church because he obviously doesn't understand the teaching of the Church, or worse, he understands and rejects. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a heretic.

It's kinds the same in that an autistic person (generally), especially an autistic teenager (generally), is unable to understand the social conventions or morality that would allow him or her to be an effective leader.

I'm sorry if I offended you. I have an autistic brother and I see no problem with my statement, but I can see how others may. So, I apologize.

No punishment or discipline should be given by a church. A government can, because it has nothing to do with religion, but a church that claims to be Christian? What happened to forgiveness and "Judge not lest ye be judged"? Only God can judge. A church should be a sanctuary for anyone, especially criminals. Jesus spent a lot of time with people you would have turned away with this. Religion should be open for anyone to better themselves, not just those who feel they are righteous.

More than anyone, I would think, a person who believes in God and commits murder would need the church. He needs someone to help him through so rough a time in his life, not to be outcast.

Then why does Paul say for the Church to discipline it's members? 1 Corinthians 5:13 says to expel the wicked from among us (us being the Church). Does the Church have the same power of discipline or the same range of punishments available to it to use? No - the death penalty, for example, is reserved to the civil government.

Only God can judge? First, allow me to be picayune, but able to and allowed to are to different things. We are able to judge and we are commanded to do so at certain times. Jesus was speaking to the lay people: the commoners who had no effect on the judicial or legislative proceedings. So they are not to judge. Another point is that we are not to usurp God's place as the Judge. But He made all mature Christians judges, if very low judges. Paul says that Christians should not seek civil lawsuits between each other because the saints (Christians) are quite capable of judging the lawsuits. Christians are going to help judge men and angels, so why wouldn't they be able to decide whether a debt ought to be repaid?!?

What happened to forgiveness? It's still here. But there are still consequences, even where there is forgiveness. Even though God forgives your hypothetical sin of adultery (if you repent), He still lets you endure the consequences of that adultery. And some consequences of actions are punishment by the Church or the civil government.

Who would I have turned away? Not the people Jesus spent time with: they had repented and followed Him. And even if they had not, I would still be kind and loving to them. But being kind and loving is not the same as permitting them to guide the actions of the Body of Christ.

I'm a Calvinist: "there is no one righteous, no not one." I'm living proof of that.

If you repent, you want help. The only time anyone would be excommunicated (which is not the same as ostracizing) would be if they refused to repent, which means they don't want help or support. In the spiritual realm, that is, which is supposed to be the Christian's first priority.

Does that mean that those that are not repentant are to be disciplined by Man's will?

Oh, and I'm Irish Catholic, and a proud supporter of the Epsicopalian organizational style.

The unrepentent is to be disciplined, only if it is God's will. I think that He makes it very clear in Scripture that it is His will. The Christian should never be happy about discipling a person. It's a paradox, because they should dalight in following the command, but should "mourn" over what the command has them do. So, it is Man's will (more particuarlly, the Christian's will) to do God's will. And God's will is that the unrepentent be disciplined if they are in the Church and sometimes outside the Church (prison for rapists).

I personally think, that the two most important of Jesus' teachings to the modern world are 'Judge not lest ye be judged' and 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' These are NOT context-dependent teachings, one of the point's of Christ's divinity is that he could say things relavent through the ages... And these are teachings that the Church MUST take to heart.

I was merely saying that the heretic is incapable of leading the Church because he obviously doesn't understand the teaching of the Church, or worse, he understands and rejects. Otherwise, he wouldn't be a heretic.

It is the men leading the given church who decide those to be declared heretics. Are these men not fallible?

I'm Baptist and have been since I was three.I bet you're the first person on here to have West Virginia in their location :eek:

My local church is derelict, it's a shame that such a beautiful building is now a filthy ruin. It has been like that since before I was born. Recently abandoned churches sometimes get used for other things which I think is great. I don't know anyone who isn't over 60 that goes to church, that's why there are few still in use here. I'm glad that this is so, I'm against organised religion you know. So no, I didn't vote in your stupid poll.

It is the men leading the given church who decide those to be declared heretics. Are these men not fallible?

But the word of God is not.

So a man says that Jesus is not the only means by which one can be saved. Jesus said that He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me."

Not very much to interpret. The man refuses to agree with the Bible, therefore rejecting orthodoxy and embracing heresy.

Granted not all orthodoxy vs. heresy debates are as obvious as this. But that is why there are denominations of Christianity and disagreements within denominations. I do not think anyone should be an elder, deacon, or pastor in the Presbyterian (note the capital p) Church if he rejects predestination. However, I have no problem with him being a member of the church. But as for the man above, who rejects Jesus as the sole means of salvation, I have a problem with him becoming even a member, because the concept is so basic.

So because there are things which Man can quite easily say "This is heresy" to and there are others that are more cloudy, though not less important.

My local church is derelict, it's a shame that such a beautiful building is now a filthy ruin. It has been like that since before I was born. Recently abandoned churches sometimes get used for other things which I think is great. I don't know anyone who isn't over 60 that goes to church, that's why there are few still in use here. I'm glad that this is so, I'm against organised religion you know. So no, I didn't vote in your stupid poll.

I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but your post sounds so eerie. Maybe it's just me, but the way the words come together and ... I don't know, but it doesn't sound natural to me. I had to reread the post a couple times because I was distracted by the "feel" of it. :confused:

Again, no offense or insult meant against you.

I'm my own church. I come with an in-built pew. And I'm sitting on it now.

I don't mean this as an insult or anything, but your post sounds so eerie. Maybe it's just me, but the way the words come together and ... I don't know, but it doesn't sound natural to me. I had to reread the post a couple times because I was distracted by the "feel" of it. :confused:

Again, no offense or insult meant against you.
Maybe it was because I was talking about derelict churches. I always thought it was creepy as a child when we'd play in the old church. Long abandoned buildings always have a gloomy atmosphere.

So my post had an eerie quality did it? Maybe I should write horror stories...
Except that I don't have the patience to write an entire novel. Maybe I should write childrens horror stories...

Maybe I should write childrens horror stories...

Perhaps you should.

Though any children I might have won't be reading them. :p

Well, I guess that depends on the age you write the stories for.

Perhaps you should.

Perhaps I should...

I could put in subliminal messages to brainwash the children. All the cool kids are communists. :)

Perhaps I should...

I could put in subliminal messages to brainwash the children. All the cool kids are communists. :)

Perhaps you shouldn't.

Perhaps you shouldn't.

Perhaps I was joking...all the cool kids are satanists. ;)

I think Unitarian Universalist churches are congregational, not exactly sure though.

Empty churches. Those are the best ones. :)

Empty churches. Those are the best ones. :)

I never really understand why people go on threads about things that don't interest them. The OP was not in any way offensive or controversial really.

I never really understand why people go on threads about things that don't interest them. The OP was not in any way offensive or controversial really.

But it does interest me, I find religion funny. :D

I already began this thread several days ago, but it was closed. I think it was because of the name (which had been "Another Annoying Religion Thread"). So, I'm trying again with a different name. I think this is an interesting subject, so I would like to see it discussed in depth. My first attempt lasted only until the second page had begun.

I want to know your opinions or assumptions (for those of you who have not considered it).

There are four types of Church government:

Episcopalian: the power comes from the top down, examples are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, most Methodists, most Lutherans, most Anglicans and Episcopalians, and pretty much any other church with bishops.

Presbyterian: the power flows up and then back down, presbyterian church government is a Christian republic (not a Christian democracy), the people elect the wise, spiritually mature, knowledgeable, etc. to rule over them, King George called the American Revolution "that Presbyterian Revolt", examples include Presbyterians and most Reformed churches (This is my pick).

Congregational: the power flows up, the church conventions agree on what an individual church has to do to be a part of the convention, but everything else is up to the individual church, examples include most Baptists.

Independent: churches aren't organized beyond alliances to share material or send missionaries, etc.

What kind do you go to? Which would you prefer to go to? Do you not care? If you cared where would you go?
To clarify on the Methodist thing: The United Methodist Church, while it does have an order of bishops who do have authority within the organization, is also democratic-- Any member of the church can be a voting representative at the annual conference for their region. I was a representative this year at Annual Conference, and I'm still a minor. But since I'm a member of the church, my vote counts the same as the vote of any pastor or anyone else.

The Methodist model is really a mix of the Episcopalian and Presbyterian forms of church government.

I already began this thread several days ago, but it was closed. I think it was because of the name (which had been "Another Annoying Religion Thread"). So, I'm trying again with a different name. I think this is an interesting subject, so I would like to see it discussed in depth. My first attempt lasted only until the second page had begun.

I want to know your opinions or assumptions (for those of you who have not considered it).

There are four types of Church government:

Episcopalian: the power comes from the top down, examples are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, most Methodists, most Lutherans, most Anglicans and Episcopalians, and pretty much any other church with bishops.

Presbyterian: the power flows up and then back down, presbyterian church government is a Christian republic (not a Christian democracy), the people elect the wise, spiritually mature, knowledgeable, etc. to rule over them, King George called the American Revolution "that Presbyterian Revolt", examples include Presbyterians and most Reformed churches (This is my pick).

Congregational: the power flows up, the church conventions agree on what an individual church has to do to be a part of the convention, but everything else is up to the individual church, examples include most Baptists.

Independent: churches aren't organized beyond alliances to share material or send missionaries, etc.

What kind do you go to? Which would you prefer to go to? Do you not care? If you cared where would you go?

BUH

I'm not Christian, but I would go with the Prebyterian style government, even though my heritage is closer to the Episcopalian (Catholic, if it makes a difference) tradition). It sounds all right to me, and I'm American, so HOO, let's go for that, and screw the late King George III as I want to be John Hancock.

Hey, there isn't an option to say you don't go to church.

Hey, there isn't an option to say you don't go to church.

I AM JOHN HANCOCK. Have you seen "1776"? He is a total badass. There's a reason that John Hancock has had a sort of cult form around him in the NE of the United States.

God is not personally telling anyone who is right or wrong, and who is a heretic and who is not, unless you are to believe some pretty crazy people. It is up whoever sets out to figure it out. You have the same ability to learn from whatever religious text as anyone else.

Don't compare people with differing views to autistic children, BTW.



No punishment or discipline should be given by a church. A government can, because it has nothing to do with religion, but a church that claims to be Christian? What happened to forgiveness and "Judge not lest ye be judged"? Only God can judge. A church should be a sanctuary for anyone, especially criminals. Jesus spent a lot of time with people you would have turned away with this. Religion should be open for anyone to better themselves, not just those who feel they are righteous.

More than anyone, I would think, a person who believes in God and commits murder would need the church. He needs someone to help him through so rough a time in his life, not to be outcast.

Discipline, in the form of excommunication or church censure is only applied to members of the congregation who have commited greivous sins and remain unrepentant, the purpose of the system is to lead the sinner back to repentance, as Ed has outlined.... Discipline is for correction of wrongs, not abuse.... To give a better illustration:

Member "A" steals money from member "B", member "B" confronts member "A", but member "A" refuses to, so member "B" may bring this up with two elders and they with member "B" will meet member "A" to attempt to correct the situation... Member "A" continues to refuse, so member "B" brings formal charges in the session (the local ruling body)... The session finds member "A" to be guilty in a system of trial, and is placed under censure (denied access to the communion table/excommunicated)because of member "A"'s open sin. Part of the requirements for the censure to be lifted would include that he pay member "B"'s money back, or at least begin to work out a system of payments, and also to confess this sin which he/she has commited; at which time censure would be lifted, and he be brought back in full communion.

Objectively they are all based on the pyramid selling model with all the money from new recruits going upwards to the head of the church who gets to live in luxury at everyone else's expense.

To clarify on the Methodist thing: The United Methodist Church, while it does have an order of bishops who do have authority within the organization, is also democratic-- Any member of the church can be a voting representative at the annual conference for their region. I was a representative this year at Annual Conference, and I'm still a minor. But since I'm a member of the church, my vote counts the same as the vote of any pastor or anyone else.

The Methodist model is really a mix of the Episcopalian and Presbyterian forms of church government.

Maybe your particular denomination is, but the majority of Methodist denominations are purely episcopalian. I said most in the OP.

Hey, there isn't an option to say you don't go to church.

That's why I said to vote for where you would go, or for what system you would support.

Objectively they are all based on the pyramid selling model with all the money from new recruits going upwards to the head of the church who gets to live in luxury at everyone else's expense.

Well, uh, no. From personal experience that's not the case with the presbyterian model, and I wonder how accurate that is across the board even with the more hierarchical models.

Well, uh, no. From personal experience that's not the case with the presbyterian model, and I wonder how accurate that is across the board even with the more hierarchical models.

Marjoe Gortner
Peter Popoff
Jim Bakker
The Catholic Church
...

You either misunderstand me or I didn't make myself clear.

Excommunication = taking a member off the roles

If the person repents, they are to be "recommunicated" if that word exists. I'm sorry if I confused you as to what my position is.

unless they are doing undue harm to the actual church family why is it any of your business what sins they have?

I wouldn't disown and kick my child out on the street unless her wrong doings were objectively harming the family.

I think you like to have control over other people too much.

But the word of God is not.

Of course not. But even what we have as the word of God was transmitted through fallible men. Thus, in the end, nothing that has been passed on to us through the hands of men is infallible. Only the direct guidance of God can possibly be infallible, and even that is interpreted through our own fallible minds.

So a man says that Jesus is not the only means by which one can be saved. Jesus said that He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me."

How many ways might there be to find Jesus? Does it have to be by name, or would you be following Jesus if you followed the guidance of God and the teachings of Jesus without ever even having heard them?

Granted not all orthodoxy vs. heresy debates are as obvious as this. But that is why there are denominations of Christianity and disagreements within denominations. I do not think anyone should be an elder, deacon, or pastor in the Presbyterian (note the capital p) Church if he rejects predestination. However, I have no problem with him being a member of the church. But as for the man above, who rejects Jesus as the sole means of salvation, I have a problem with him becoming even a member, because the concept is so basic.

And herein lies the problem with organized religion. Any time the decisions of others come before your personal relationship with God, I think there is a problem.

So because there are things which Man can quite easily say "This is heresy" to and there are others that are more cloudy, though not less important.

All men are fallible. All of the instructions and accounts we have from men are fallible - as the men were fallible. As such, man can never say, with certainty, that anything is heresy. He can say that he believes it to be such. He can ask God for guidance on it. But he must always realize his own fallibility.

That's why I said to vote for where you would go, or for what system you would support.
Where's the option for those who think religion is silly, and wouldn't ever go to church and wouldn't ever support any kind of church system?

:confused:

unless they are doing undue harm to the actual church family why is it any of your business what sins they have?

I wouldn't disown and kick my child out on the street unless her wrong doings were objectively harming the family.

I think you like to have control over other people too much.

I think you are protesting against what I'm saying too much. If a person refuses to repent of a sin then, it's poisoning the Church. And for the Church to know that a member refuses to repent of a sin, they have to know that there is a sin. Should the Church hunt out every little sin? No. The Church should not hunt for sin, but if sin surfaces, it doesn't matter what the individuals think: Scripture shows that it must be dealt with and how to deal with it.

I think you are protesting against what I'm saying too much. If a person refuses to repent of a sin then, it's poisoning the Church. And for the Church to know that a member refuses to repent of a sin, they have to know that there is a sin. Should the Church hunt out every little sin? No. The Church should not hunt for sin, but if sin surfaces, it doesn't matter what the individuals think: Scripture shows that it must be dealt with and how to deal with it.

everyone has unrepented sins, I am wondering what makes you (or the people "in charge") competent to judge people?

everyone has unrepented sins, I am wondering what makes you (or the people "in charge") competent to judge people?

Because all Christians will help God judge men and angels. 1 Corinthians 6:2,3

I think that makes us very competent to judge the "little" things of this world if we will help to judge souls at the end of it.

But we are fallible. So that is why I prefer the presbyterian method. We are all equals while recognizing that God has blessed some in the ares of wisdom, knowledge, etc. more than He has others. So you and I must submit to their judgements unless we can find clear cause form Scripture to protest.

I do not claim to have more wisdom and knowledge than you, but I feel that I've used Scripture to back up my claims.

Because all Christians will help God judge men and angels. 1 Corinthians 6:2,3
actually those verses are not about what we are talking about, they are about not running to court with lawsuits about things that can be solved within the church.

I think that makes us very competent to judge the "little" things of this world if we will help to judge souls at the end of it.
we are not to judge people at all in the sense of trying to "correct their behavior" the church is not a means to punish people, we are to be supportive, not trying to pull people down.

But we are fallible. So that is why I prefer the presbyterian method. We are all equals while recognizing that God has blessed some in the ares of wisdom, knowledge, etc. more than He has others. So you and I must submit to their judgements unless we can find clear cause form Scripture to protest.
and I prefer things to be handled in a loving way between people who are in the same church family.

I do not claim to have more wisdom and knowledge than you, but I feel that I've used Scripture to back up my claims.
Rom 14:7-10For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

actually those verses are not about what we are talking about, they are about not running to court with lawsuits about things that can be solved within the church.

And? The point is that the Christian is much more capable of judging (in general) than a non-Christian. juging anything. And we are commanded to judge. Look at the elders in the OT. Were they the civil government? Yes, but the government was a theocracy of sorts. Look at Jesus talking about knowing a tree by its fruit. We have to judge whether the fruit is good or bad, don't we? Hopefully, it is obvious one way or another, but we are still judging it.

we are not to judge people at all in the sense of trying to "correct their behavior" the church is not a means to punish people, we are to be supportive, not trying to pull people down.

Who's correcting behavior? There is only punishment if the person refuses to correct himself or if the Law requires it.

and I prefer things to be handled in a loving way between people who are in the same church family.

Which it should be. But, if the father of a family is putting the family in danger (in all practical situations), outsiders need to be involved. Same with the leaders of a church.

Rom 14:7-10For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.
For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

You're mentioning all the verses that speak against a judgemental spirit or judging unjustly, but you ignore the verses which tell us when and how to judge.

I guess we just have to disagree on this subject.

And? The point is that the Christian is much more capable of judging (in general) than a non-Christian. juging anything. And we are commanded to judge. Look at the elders in the OT. Were they the civil government? Yes, but the government was a theocracy of sorts. Look at Jesus talking about knowing a tree by its fruit. We have to judge whether the fruit is good or bad, don't we? Hopefully, it is obvious one way or another, but we are still judging it.
there is a difference between discernment and judgement.


Who's correcting behavior? There is only punishment if the person refuses to correct himself or if the Law requires it.
you want them to behave in the way you laid down and if they don't you kick them out of church, that's punishment.


Which it should be. But, if the father of a family is putting the family in danger (in all practical situations), outsiders need to be involved. Same with the leaders of a church.
there is a place for it, when the church member is doing what can objectively be held as harm to the church, for example if an employee of the church (also a member) was stealing from the offering, then they are harming the church. If you are going to say though that anyone with unrepented sin is harming the church and should be removed, then you are going to have an empty church.

Church isn't a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. ;)



You're mentioning all the verses that speak against a judgemental spirit or judging unjustly, but you ignore the verses which tell us when and how to judge.
we are only to discern people or things that would be harmful to our personal walk, we are not to interfere with others because we think they aren't "being good enough"

I guess we just have to disagree on this subject.
I suppose we will.

I suppose we will.

Okay, then. Have a nice day.

I'll pray that you repent of your heresies. :p

Okay, then. Have a nice day.

I'll pray that you repent of your heresies. :p

I'll pray the same for you. :p

I'll pray the same for you. :p

LOL

LOL

so, Dem.... you wanna debate with me? surely we disagree too?

so, Dem.... you wanna debate with me? surely we disagree too?

I'm sure we do, but we're probably more in agreement than Edwardis and I would be. =)

I largely shy away from highly organized religion precisely because I don't think that any of us have any more authority when it comes to our relationship with God than any other. Some may be more studied than the others, and can act as teachers. But, I believe that, in the end, it is the guidance we receive from God that matters the most - and what we do with it. Religion, to me, is a very personal thing - about a personal relationship with God, personal beliefs, and the wish to make ourselves better people. Actual authority given to other human beings has very little, if any, place in that.

there is a difference between discernment and judgement.



you want them to behave in the way you laid down and if they don't you kick them out of church, that's punishment.



there is a place for it, when the church member is doing what can objectively be held as harm to the church, for example if an employee of the church (also a member) was stealing from the offering, then they are harming the church. If you are going to say though that anyone with unrepented sin is harming the church and should be removed, then you are going to have an empty church.

Church isn't a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners. ;)




we are only to discern people or things that would be harmful to our personal walk, we are not to interfere with others because we think they aren't "being good enough"


I suppose we will.

I believe you keep misinterpreting the meaning of excommunication in the same way a papist would. Excommunication is not physically blocking someone access and entrance into the church building, barring them from attendance to services, or any such like. It's barring one from the Lord's Supper, as well as their voting power in congregational meetings, a reclassification as or back to non-communing member status within the congregation, untill such time as their open sin be repented and confessed.

I believe you keep misinterpreting the meaning of excommunication in the same way a papist would. Excommunication is not physically blocking someone access and entrance into the church building, barring them from attendance to services, or any such like. It's barring one from the Lord's Supper, as well as their voting power in congregational meetings, a reclassification as or back to non-communing member status within the congregation, untill such time as their open sin be repented and confessed.
how is that keeping them from "poisoning the church family" like Edwardis said?

okay and also (sorry for the edit) how do you know who has unrepented sins bad enough to keep them from communion? I mean everyone has them, so whose is bad enough, and who is just enough to judge?

how is that keeping them from "poisoning the church family" like Edwardis said?

okay and also (sorry for the edit) how do you know who has unrepented sins bad enough to keep them from communion? I mean everyone has them, so whose is bad enough, and who is just enough to judge?

Because it leaves them apart from decisions of the church body. But the important thing in censure/excommunication is encouragement to attend services as a means of eventual re-entering into communion with Christ.

When we're talking about unrepentant sins which required a ruling by the session, we're talking open sins, in which case all open sins (sins known to the congregation due to actions by the member) are viable for action before the session. And the operation of censure/excommunication is held very serious by the church, as it is the last resort that can be taken against the open unrepentant member... The action of session hearing over the issue of censure of a member is taken only after the wronged party has made attempts to reconcile with the member, and after two or three ruling-elders have attempted to reconcile the situation between the members. Judgement is handled by the session, the rulling elders of the church... And the operation is that of a church court, whereby accusations are heard, and testimony is given by all parties persuant to the action of sin in question. (Although if a rulling elder is either the accused or accuser, they must dismiss themselves from the session during the time at which the trial and deliberation is held).

Any sin, which is open and made known to other members of the congregation, is applicable for action by the session once all other avenues of reconcilliation have been persued and have failed. ALL sin marrs ones fellowship with Christ, excommunication only can be operated by sins which are made manifest by actions of the sinner.

Because it leaves them apart from decisions of the church body. But the important thing in censure/excommunication is encouragement to attend services as a means of eventual re-entering into communion with Christ.

When we're talking about unrepentant sins which required a ruling by the session, we're talking open sins, in which case all open sins (sins known to the congregation due to actions by the member) are viable for action before the session. And the operation of censure/excommunication is held very serious by the church, as it is the last resort that can be taken against the open unrepentant member... The action of session hearing over the issue of censure of a member is taken only after the wronged party has made attempts to reconcile with the member, and after two or three ruling-elders have attempted to reconcile the situation between the members. Judgement is handled by the session, the rulling elders of the church... And the operation is that of a church court, whereby accusations are heard, and testimony is given by all parties persuant to the action of sin in question. (Although if a rulling elder is either the accused or accuser, they must dismiss themselves from the session during the time at which the trial and deliberation is held).

Any sin, which is open and made known to other members of the congregation, is applicable for action by the session once all other avenues of reconcilliation have been persued and have failed. ALL sin marrs ones fellowship with Christ, excommunication only can be operated by sins which are made manifest by actions of the sinner.
see? you explain things better.

When I went through "the process" I wasn't welcomed back to the church at all, they took my name off the rolls, and I wasn't even allowed to come back to get my things, they mailed them to me.

I believe you keep misinterpreting the meaning of excommunication in the same way a papist would. Excommunication is not physically blocking someone access and entrance into the church building, barring them from attendance to services, or any such like. It's barring one from the Lord's Supper,

Personally, I find the concept of barring anyone from the Lord's table to be absolutely repulsive. Communion is meant to represent Christ's sacrifice, made for all of us - a gift offered to all. Not just to people who have taken certain classes. Not just to people who are old enough. Not just to people who have submitted to punishment assigned by a religious leader. Not just to people who have followed all of the rules put together by religious leaders. The offer is made to all of us, and the representation of that offer should be open to all as well.

I don't worry much about the concept of voting in congregational meetings and such, as I don't believe that beliefs should be up for a vote. But the concept of any church keeping a roster of those who they will and will not allow to participate in Communion is something I find absolutely disgusting, and I avoid services at any church that does so.

Personally, I find the concept of barring anyone from the Lord's table to be absolutely repulsive. Communion is meant to represent Christ's sacrifice, made for all of us - a gift offered to all. Not just to people who have taken certain classes. Not just to people who are old enough. Not just to people who have submitted to punishment assigned by a religious leader. Not just to people who have followed all of the rules put together by religious leaders. The offer is made to all of us, and the representation of that offer should be open to all as well.

Communion represents the partaking of the sacrifice of Christ, and thus is only applicable to those who are actually in communion with Christ... Those who have not entered into this communion (Covenant Children of members) or those who have not repented of sins commited since would be eating and drinking to thier own damnation, as they are not partaking (in thier life) of Christ's Sacrifice. There is no "old enough" in the Presbyterian system, except in the concept of old enough to profess their belief before the body in Christ and His work in their life, the placement of one on the roles of membership as a non-communicant or communicant members is based upon the status of ones own confession in Christ, those in non-communicant status either have not entered into communion with Him, or have commited open sin against the body of Christ and remain unrepentant of that sin (as examples I've outlined). As a general rule, it is allowed for each person to determine their own spiritual status before Christ and make the grave determination of one is right before Christ before partaking in the Lord's Table, excommunication only exists where all other attempts to reconcile the lost sinner have failed. These are not interpretive sins of religious leaders, these are blanket open sins; in fact in the presbyterian system, the only people applicable to particular interpretive sins relating to church orders are that of the people in representation of the body in general under ordination (Teaching and Ruling elders) but not in terms of the communicant members of a congregation, nor the diaconate... The former is held on account of violations of base sins as well as that of violations of the Westminster Standards, the later only to base sins (theft, adultry, murder, lying, fornication etc.) where they are open.


I don't worry much about the concept of voting in congregational meetings and such, as I don't believe that beliefs should be up for a vote. But the concept of any church keeping a roster of those who they will and will not allow to participate in Communion is something I find absolutely disgusting, and I avoid services at any church that does so.

Voting is the system of determination of people entering into offices in the church (Teaching and Ruling elders, Deacons, Secretaries, etc.) pay scales for hired offices (Pastor, Associate Pastor, Pastoral Assistant, Secretary) and church budget approval.

As to such a roster, such varies, depending upon the particular Presbyterian Church as the status of its "openness" in regards to communion, the PCA [Presbyterian Church in America] and PCUSA [Presbyterian Church in the United States of America] both only keep rosters as far as non-communicant children and those under church censure for open sin, all others are allowed access with the warning that they be in good standing member of any church of Christ. The OPC [Orthodox Presbyterian Church], on the other hand, is closed, and only allows communicant members of that particular congregation to partake in the Lord's Supper.

see? you explain things better.

When I went through "the process" I wasn't welcomed back to the church at all, they took my name off the rolls, and I wasn't even allowed to come back to get my things, they mailed them to me.

Well, that is a horrible act, as discipline should be corrective upon the sinner, not punitive... What denomination uses excommunication in such a manner?

Well, that is a horrible act, as discipline should be corrective upon the sinner, not punitive... What denomination uses excommunication in such a manner?
it was an independent southern baptist church, they were kicked out of the convention for doing things like that.

I got kicked out for listening to secular music.

it was an independent southern baptist church, they were kicked out of the convention for doing things like that.

I got kicked out for listening to secular music.

That's a little extreme. I think that most of the secular music out there currently is unhealthy, but not soemthing that should even require anything other than a "You know, you should be careful with..."

it was an independent southern baptist church, they were kicked out of the convention for doing things like that.

I got kicked out for listening to secular music.

It would have been harder upon a PCA church, the elders would have lost their ordinations, and since the building is owned by the regional presbytry, also the church building... We also have a system of appeal in the PCA, where cases can be taken before the presbytry [Regional Governing body] or the General Assembly [National Governing body].

An example of PCA action would be removal of Church Orders and excommunication of the former Reverend Paul Hill after his advocation that the killing of abortion doctors is "justifiable homicide" under violation of XXIII-IV and XIX-V of the Westminster Standards.

That's a little extreme. I think that most of the secular music out there currently is unhealthy, but not soemthing that should even require anything other than a "You know, you should be careful with..."
they were insane. That's part of my reason for not wanting a single person or a small group of people in charge.

However, Tekania is talking my language and it's not the same thing where you guys reside as far as church government, so, hey, it's not as bad as I thought.

;)

they were insane. That's part of my reason for not wanting a single person or a small group of people in charge.

However, Tekania is talking my language and it's not the same thing where you guys reside as far as church government, so, hey, it's not as bad as I thought.

;)

That's good. I get to involved in debate to articulate my views clearly a lot of the time. So, I'm glad someone has explained it well.

It would have been harder upon a PCA church, the elders would have lost their ordinations, and since the building is owned by the regional presbytry, also the church building... We also have a system of appeal in the PCA, where cases can be taken before the presbytry [Regional Governing body] or the General Assembly [National Governing body].

An example of PCA action would be removal of Church Orders and excommunication of the former Reverend Paul Hill after his advocation that the killing of abortion doctors is "justifiable homicide" under violation of XXIII-IV and XIX-V of the Westminster Standards.

See? This is why I like the PCA! They actually don't let this stuff go on. I'm in PCUSA and... and... words fail me.

That's good. I get to involved in debate to articulate my views clearly a lot of the time. So, I'm glad someone has explained it well.

are you kidding I get so misunderstood around here that I frustrate myself, usually one of the more eloquent speakers has to come in and say exactly what I thought I was, I have a few that I TG just in instances where I am not able to say what I think I am saying

"hey can you check out <link to thred> and explain to them what I mean or TG me and explain to me how to say what I mean?"

most of them don't even agree with me politically, but they understand my position enough to help me out. :p I would offer to help you, but I wouldn't be much help. ;)

See? This is why I like the PCA! They actually don't let this stuff go on. I'm in PCUSA and... and... words fail me.
What's wrong with the PCUSA? Normally they act logically and (usually) rationally.

I haven't heard of them kicking people out left and right.

they were insane. That's part of my reason for not wanting a single person or a small group of people in charge.

However, Tekania is talking my language and it's not the same thing where you guys reside as far as church government, so, hey, it's not as bad as I thought.

;)


And I'm presbyterian, PCA specifically.

The PCA's system of government operates in this manner:

1. Ruling Elders, are elected from communicant members of the congregation by the congregation and ordained into office by the session (rulling body of elders of the local congregation). [These may also be "Teaching Elders" having an ordination from the Prebytry as well]... These have a vote in Session.

2. Teaching Elders, orgained by the regional presbytry, and elected by the local congregation into office as Pastor or Assistant Pastor. They act as facilitators in Session, but have no vote.

3. Deacons, approved by the Session and elected by the Congregation.

4. The Diaconate is the board of deacons of a local congregation, their responsibility is the physical wellbeing of the congregation and upkeep of the church building. Meetings are held once a week.

5. The Session, body of Rulling [holding a vote] and Teaching [facilitation] elders of a local congregation, their responsibility is the spirital wellbeing of the congregation, preperation of potential members, and discipline. Rullings by this body are only applicable to the local congregation. The Session is conveined twice a month.

6. The Presbytry, regional body of ruling and teaching elders of all churches in a region. The Presbytry is composed of one ruling elder and one teaching elder of each congregation in a particular region. Each holds one vote, and teaching elders must maintain employment with a regional congregation to maintain their seat on the presbytry. Rulings by this body are only binding upon PCA congregations in that particular region. And can act as an appelate Court over the Session of a local congregation. Presbytry is conveined once a quarter.

7. The General Assembly, national body of ruling and teaching elders, composed of one each from every congregation in a the nation. Same standards as the Presbytry. Rulings by this body are applicable to all PCA churches in the nation. Can act as an appelate court over the regional presbytry. Assembly is held once a year.

I haven't heard of them kicking people out left and right.

That's the problem! All the higher ups are heretics who need to be thrown out. And if the people in the pews would start caring, it would happen! :mad:

That's the problem! All the higher ups are heretics who need to be thrown out. And if the people in the pews would start caring, it would happen! :mad:
Um... why? Did the General Assembly do something silly again?

Um... why? Did the General Assembly do something silly again?

You haven't heard! :eek:

They made it okay for presbyteries to decide to allow unrepentent homosexuals to be ordained.

You haven't heard! :eek:
*dryly* I've kinda been in Japan for the last few years. The PCUSA doesn't exactly have a presence here and Japanese newspapers usually don't care about US Churches.

They made it okay for presbyteries to decide to allow unrepentent homosexuals to be ordained.
That vote went though? Good for them!

What's wrong with the PCUSA? Normally they act logically and (usually) rationally.

I haven't heard of them kicking people out left and right.

The PCA and PCUSA are very similar, though the PCA is abit more conservative when in comes to the offices of the church and the exercize of discipline upon members. We're abit more confined when it comes to the appointment of leadership in the church.... The PCA is more traditional in its selection of applicable members of church offices, though liberal in order of worship. The OPC is the heavily conservative wing of presbyterianism, on the other hand, being heavily conservative in both worship and appointment, much more rigid in how worship is to be done, and exercizes "Closed" communion [whereas the PCA and PCUSA have "open" communion].

Orthodoxy or Death!!!

The PCA and PCUSA are very similar, though the PCA is abit more conservative when in comes to the offices of the church and the exercize of discipline upon members. We're abit more confined when it comes to the appointment of leadership in the church.... The PCA is more traditional in its selection of applicable members of church offices, though liberal in order of worship. The OPC is the heavily conservative wing of presbyterianism, on the other hand, being heavily conservative in both worship and appointment, much more rigid in how worship is to be done, and exercizes "Closed" communion [whereas the PCA and PCUSA have "open" communion].
I admit that I know very little about the PCA. I know quite a bit about the PCUSA though. :cool:

That vote went though? Good for them!

No, bad for them. Basically what there saying is that the Word of God can be ignored for the popular ideas of today.

The ulterior motive is that the A presbyteries (AP) will refuse to ordain unrepentent homosexuals (UH) and the B presbyteries (BP) will ordain them.

A UH minister will try to leave a BP to go to an AP. The AP will refuse, the UH will take the case to Presbyterian court and the court will decide that no one has to follow the Bible if they don't want to, of course not in those words.

Communion represents the partaking of the sacrifice of Christ, and thus is only applicable to those who are actually in communion with Christ...

That is your opinion. I think that the Communion represents a remembrance of the sacrifice, and the offer of it to all human beings.

Of course, who determines "those who are actually in communion with Christ..." Can anyone but Christ really determine that? As such, can a church really deny someone the eucharist without declaring themselves the spokesmen of Christ?

These are not interpretive sins of religious leaders, these are blanket open sins;

When it comes right down to it, any sin declared by someone other than Christ is interpretive. It comes down to what the church leaders see as being sinful.

Voting is the system of determination of people entering into offices in the church (Teaching and Ruling elders, Deacons, Secretaries, etc.) pay scales for hired offices (Pastor, Associate Pastor, Pastoral Assistant, Secretary) and church budget approval.

I don't think that religion should have a hierarchy of offices. My faith is not open to vote.

That is your opinion. I think that the Communion represents a remembrance of the sacrifice, and the offer of it to all human beings.

You cannot partake of the table of Christ and the table of demons.


Of course, who determines "those who are actually in communion with Christ..." Can anyone but Christ really determine that? As such, can a church really deny someone the eucharist without declaring themselves the spokesmen of Christ?

Idealy, the person. But in the case of open, unrepentant sin, the church. Anyone with open unrepentant sin is not in communion with christ.


When it comes right down to it, any sin declared by someone other than Christ is interpretive. It comes down to what the church leaders see as being sinful.

Theft, adultry, slander, fornication, murder, etc. are not interpretive. If you have stollen from someone you have sinned, if you're not attempting to right that wrong, you've not repented of it, and confession is meaningless without repentance.


I don't think that religion should have a hierarchy of offices. My faith is not open to vote.

It is when you demonstrate through action that your statement of faith is a lie. Christ preached repentance, yet you claim you are under no obligation, the session merely reiterates the word of Christ in this regard. Christ came to SAVE sinners, not to leave them alone.... Which is your proposal.

You cannot partake of the table of Christ and the table of demons.

Table of demons? If you are saying that no one who sins can partake of the table of Christ, then no one can. Of course, last time I checked, it was offered to *everyone*, all of us sinners.

Idealy, the person. But in the case of open, unrepentant sin, the church. Anyone with open unrepentant sin is not in communion with christ.

Of course, it is the church that decides which "open, unrepentant" sins to punish in this way. As far as I can tell, the church can't see into a person's heart to know whether or not they have repented. It can't know for certain whether their actions were sinful, especially if there are strange circumstances surrounding it.

Theft,

If I am poor and my child is starving and I can find no free food to give him, is it truly sinful to steal it? What if I am stealing discarded food?

adultry,

You aren't going to find many people openly committing adultery.

slander,

Something is only slanderous if it is untrue. Of course, if a person is lying, they aren't going to admit to that fact. Thus, to declare a person guilty of slander, the church would have to first declare itself to be infallible in the matter, and decide what is and is not truthful.

fornication,

Fornication is actually very interpretive. What exactly constitutes a marriage? Does it have to be blessed by the church? Or can two people be married without any ceremony?

My fiance and I would most likely be "fornicators" according to your church. However, as far as he and I (and, I believe, God) are concerned, we are already married. We have made that committment. The ceremony and paperwork we will go through next year is to make it official in the eyes of other human beings, not in our eyes or in God's.

murder,

If someone is about to kill my child, and I stop them with a bullet, is that sinful?

If you have stollen from someone you have sinned, if you're not attempting to right that wrong, you've not repented of it, and confession is meaningless without repentance.

Repentance involves being sorry for what you have done and endeavoring not to do it again. Attempts to "right the wrong" may be made in some cases, but may be impossible and certainly are not necessary to repent.

It is when you demonstrate through action that your statement of faith is a lie.

Oh? And what have I done to suggest that my statement of faith is a lie? Do you claim to have the power to see into my heart?

Christ preached repentance, yet you claim you are under no obligation,

Wow! Talk about a strawman argument. I have never once claimed that you are under no obligation to repent. Try again.

Christ came to SAVE sinners, not to leave them alone.... Which is your proposal.

More strawmen! At what point did I claim that Christ came to "leave them alone"?

Seriously, bearing false witness is considered a sin in your church, is it not?

Table of demons? If you are saying that no one who sins can partake of the table of Christ, then no one can. Of course, last time I checked, it was offered to *everyone*, all of us sinners.

You keep missing that word, "repentance" and its various forms, specifically unrepentant... Sinners (in general) are not barred from the Lord's Supper, unrepentant sinners, however, are... An unrepentant sinner is not enjoined in Christ and His sacrifice, and thus has no part in its form within Communion.


Of course, it is the church that decides which "open, unrepentant" sins to punish in this way. As far as I can tell, the church can't see into a person's heart to know whether or not they have repented. It can't know for certain whether their actions were sinful, especially if there are strange circumstances surrounding it.

You do not need to see into someones heart to see repentance... Repentance isn't an idea, it's an action, and you can see action. If a man is caught sleeping around on his wife, and when confronted continues to do so, I can tell you absolutely 100% that they have not repented... If a person steals money from someone, and refuses to repay the person they stole from, I can tell you 100% absolutely that they have not repented.


If I am poor and my child is starving and I can find no free food to give him, is it truly sinful to steal it? What if I am stealing discarded food?

Yes, it is truly sinful to steal it, since it is the property of another. As for discarded food, it's no longer in the possession of another... so no.


You aren't going to find many people openly committing adultery.

Not intentionally no, but what is hidden can reveal itself.


Something is only slanderous if it is untrue. Of course, if a person is lying, they aren't going to admit to that fact. Thus, to declare a person guilty of slander, the church would have to first declare itself to be infallible in the matter, and decide what is and is not truthful.

Which is quite possible... Discovering the truth that is.


Fornication is actually very interpretive. What exactly constitutes a marriage? Does it have to be blessed by the church? Or can two people be married without any ceremony?

A person having sexual relations with a prostitute is fornication... Serial Monogamy is fornication...


My fiance and I would most likely be "fornicators" according to your church. However, as far as he and I (and, I believe, God) are concerned, we are already married. We have made that committment. The ceremony and paperwork we will go through next year is to make it official in the eyes of other human beings, not in our eyes or in God's.

I would agree with you.


If someone is about to kill my child, and I stop them with a bullet, is that sinful?

No, since it's not murder.


Repentance involves being sorry for what you have done and endeavoring not to do it again. Attempts to "right the wrong" may be made in some cases, but may be impossible and certainly are not necessary to repent.

Well, obviously the wrong cannot be righted in some cases [murder, adultry], but repentance itself requires a definitive change in direction in your life... And a real attempt to right it where possible [theft]...


Oh? And what have I done to suggest that my statement of faith is a lie? Do you claim to have the power to see into my heart?

Your statement of faith is open up for deliberation when you act in a manner non in accord with that faith... If you claim faith in Christ and His sacrifice, yet keep on sinning over and over again in a meaningless repetition, you've not repented and you've made your declaration as such a lie every time you say it... Allowing such to partake in communion is aiding and abetting the person in their lie. I was answering WHEN your faith would be open to vote.


Wow! Talk about a strawman argument. I have never once claimed that you are under no obligation to repent. Try again.

Except, by your own operations you would say that the unrepentant are in communion with Christ and His sacrifice, since you find it abhorrent as such to consider them otherwise.


More strawmen! At what point did I claim that Christ came to "leave them alone"?

Everytime you have aided the unrepentant to continuance of their lie, unworthily partaking in communion in open defiance of Christ and His work.


Seriously, bearing false witness is considered a sin in your church, is it not?

I'm not bearing false witness.

Reeeeeally independent. I am my church's prophet, and only congregant. :D

No, bad for them. Basically what there saying is that the Word of God can be ignored for the popular ideas of today.
The same argument was used when the Church allowed for the ordination of women, I didn't see it holding water then, and I don't now.

I really don't think it's a Christian's place no matter what position they are in to go around punishing people for their various shortcomings.
Did I ever tell you that you're my favorite Christian?

The same argument was used when the Church allowed for the ordination of women, I didn't see it holding water then, and I don't now.

Because the role of women in the Church is cloudy. It's not with homosexuals. If they are unrepentent, then they have no place in the leadership of the Church, just as any other unrepentent person has no place in the leadership.

Levitcus 18:22,29
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
1 Timothy 1:8-11

You keep missing that word, "repentance" and its various forms, specifically unrepentant... Sinners (in general) are not barred from the Lord's Supper, unrepentant sinners, however, are... An unrepentant sinner is not enjoined in Christ and His sacrifice, and thus has no part in its form within Communion.

And, once again, you miss the fact that I have made it clear that I think the purpose of the Eucharist is to remember Christ and represent the sacrifice which was made for all people, not to represent the current state of your relationship with Christ. Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me.." not "Do this to represent that your relationship with me is in good order."

To me, the Eucharist, and it's offer to those attending service, represents the offer of salvation. It represent the sacrifice that Christ has made - which led to the offer of salvation to all. It does not, to me, represent that you have currently attained salvation.

You do not need to see into someones heart to see repentance...

Yes. You do. Repentence is a state of mind. It is the state of being sorry you have done wrong, and attempting to improve yourself - attempting to keep from doing it. You might still screw up and do it again (which might appear unrepentant to another). On the other hand, you might stop doing something, but only to impress those around you, rather than through any true admission of wrong. In this way, you would appear repentent to others, but would actually be unrepentent. Only by seeing the intentions of the person invovled can you determine whether or not they are truly repentent.

Yes, it is truly sinful to steal it, since it is the property of another.

So letting your child starve to death wouldn't be a sin?

As for discarded food, it's no longer in the possession of another... so no.

According to our laws, discarded food still belongs to someone - either to the person who has discarded it (if it is still on their property) or to the city (if it has been picked up).

Not intentionally no, but what is hidden can reveal itself.

Are you infallible? Unless you see someone sleeping with another, how do you know they are doing it?

Which is quite possible... Discovering the truth that is.

Is it? With certainty? Once again, are you infallible? Is your church?

No, since it's not murder.

Of course it is. I planned to kill someone, and did it. The fact that it was in self-defence means that most people would justify it, but it was still intentional killing of another human being.

Your statement of faith is open up for deliberation when you act in a manner non in accord with that faith...

How can anyone else determine what behavior is in accordance with your personal faith?

Meanwhile, my statement that my faith is not open to vote meant that what I believe is not open to vote. I don't take my beliefs directly from other human beings or what other human beings decide is right. I determine them through my relationship with Jesus Christ.

Except, by your own operations you would say that the unrepentant are in communion with Christ and His sacrifice, since you find it abhorrent as such to consider them otherwise.

No, I said that the unrepentant, as well as the repentant, have been offered the sacrifice of Christ - the chance at salvation. And, to me, the Eucharist represents that offer - that sacrifice - not the acceptance of it. As far as I am concerned, a person of a completely different faith attending church services should be welcome at the Lord's Table, because that offer is made to them just as it is made to all professing faith in the congregation.

Remember that, at the actual Lord's Supper, Judas Iscariot was present and there is no record that he was not allowed to partake, even though both he and Christ knew that Judas would betray him.

Everytime you have aided the unrepentant to continuance of their lie, unworthily partaking in communion in open defiance of Christ and His work.

No one is worthy of the gift Christ offers. And yet it is offered anyways....

Once again, I will reiterate what I already stated earlier in this thread. It is quite obvious that you and I disagree on the purpose of the Eucharist. And yet you continue to apply your own ideas on its purpose to my statements, trying to suggest that I have said or done something I have not.

I'm not bearing false witness.

Yes, you are. You are accusing me of saying things I have not said.