Jennie wrote: The Lord didn't GIVE us the church, we ARE the church. He gave us the Holy Spirit and His word and the Spirit gifts each of us in different ways, including men who can teach and lead others. We all have the Holy Spirit to teach and guide us, however, and have the responsibility to compare teachings to scripture, as those often cited Bereans did.
Barbara replied: Never mind that in the context of Acts 17 the Bereans were obviously comparing Paul's teachings to the Hebrew Scriptures (not the NT). Secondly the Bereans are being held up as nice guys because they are willing to listen to give Paul's story a fair chance instead of rising up against him like those in Thessalonica. Third, no where does it say that to be a like a Berean one must compare teachings to scripture on a regular basis to make sure they are true or that everyone should be like the Bereans to be a Christian.
If anything, the Berean story reflects fair-minded tolerance for listening to another's viewpoint and giving it fair consideration instead of just striking out at those who say things you don't want to hear.
I understand that "being a Berean" has become some sort of rallying cry for some sola scriptura Christians, but I think it has been blown way out of Biblical context.
Barbara reminded me privately of an article written by Steve Ray for Catholic apologetics magazine This Rock, back in 1997. It is available online here.
When Protestants use this passage as a proof text for the doctrine of sola scriptura, they should realize that those in question were not Christians; they were Hellenistic Jews. There was no doctrine of sola scriptura within Jewish communities, but the Scriptures were held as sacred. Although the Jews are frequently referred to as "the people of the book," in reality they had a strong oral tradition that accompanied their Scriptures, along with an authoritative teaching authority, as represented by the "seat of Moses" in the synagogues (Matt. 23:2). The Jews had no reason to accept Paul’s teaching as "divinely inspired," since they had just met him. When new teachings sprang up that claimed to be a development of Judaism, the rabbis researched to see if they could be verified from the Torah.
If one of the two groups could be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, obviously. They, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue, yet they rejected his teaching. They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).
When some of the Greeks and prominent citizens did accept Jesus as Messiah, the Jews became jealous—and rightfully so, from their perspective, since the new believers separated themselves from the synagogue and began meeting elsewhere, at Jason’s house. The Jews naturally considered themselves the authoritative interpreters of the Torah. Who were the Gentiles to interpret Scripture and decide important theological issues or accept additional revelation? They were the "dogs," not the chosen custodians of the oracles of God (see William Barclay, The Acts of the Apostles [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Westminster Press, 1976], 128).
We can see, then, that if anyone could be classified as adherents to sola scriptura it was the Thessalonian Jews. They reasoned from the Scriptures alone and concluded that Paul’s new teaching was "unbiblical."
The Bereans, on the other hand, were not adherents of sola scriptura, for they were willing to accept Paul’s new oral teaching as the word of God (as Paul claimed his oral teaching was; see 1 Thess. 2:13). The Bereans, before accepting the oral word of God from Paul, a tradition as even Paul himself refers to it (see 2 Thess. 2:15), examined the Scriptures to see if these things were so. They were noble-minded precisely because they "received the word with all eagerness." Were the Bereans commended primarily for searching the Scriptures? No. Their open-minded willingness to listen was the primary reason they are referred to as noble-minded—not that they searched the Scriptures. A perusal of grammars and commentaries makes it clear that they were "noble-minded" not for studying Scripture, but for treating Paul more civilly than did the Thessalonians—with an open mind and generous courtesy (see I. Howard Marshall, "The Acts of the Apostles" in the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1981], 5:280).
50 comments:
And what was Paul teaching that was not in accordance with scripture that the Bereans accepted?
I actually think it's the other way: (NT) Scripture gets accepted as such because it conforms to the Faith, commonly held.
But, anyway, it's interesting to read, say in Proverbs, that believers aren't supposed to be open-minded. And let's not forget the "every wind of doctrine" passage in Eph 4:14.
I recently read this quote attributed to the Holy Father:
In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.
One major difference between the Bereans and the Thessalonians is that, while both groups were Jews, the Thessalonians did not receive the gospel when they heard it because, though they knew the scriptures, they also were bound by their traditions that had built up over time and blinded them to the word of God that Paul was speaking to them (Christ says this several times in the gospels that the Jews were blinded by their traditions). The Bereans apparently were not so bound, because they readily received the gospel and then, being good Jews, compared what he said to the scriptures to see if these things were so. Despite what Steve Ray says, the Bereans WERE called fair-minded both because they received the gospel readily AND because they searched the scriptures to compare the oral teachings to them.
It doesn't matter that the scriptures they used were the Old Testament. The same thing applies to hearing teachings today, that can be compared to the New and Old Testament together. Why should it make any difference that the Bereans used the Hebrew Scriptures, while today we can use both testaments? They knew that Paul's words were God's word because, first they submitted to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and secondly they compared them to the written scriptures to be sure they were not being led astray. The Spirit and the Truth are necessary.
And, also in response to Steve Ray, Sola Scriptura does not only suggest belief in scripture as the final authority, but it presupposes the readiness to accept the preached word by the conviction of the Holy Spirit which is what happened during the Reformation when people heard the gospel preached purely from scripture without the traditions and superstitions that had accumulated over the centuries, just as the tradtions had developed with the Jews that kept them from seeing the Messiah when He came.
DOW wrote: And what was Paul teaching that was not in accordance with scripture that the Bereans accepted?
First of all, Jesus was not the type of Messiah that many Jews expected. This is why a lot of them did not except him. Jesus's (and later Paul's) ministry was very radical. It was bolstered by eye-witness testimony of the resurrection. It wasn't just a matter of "bad Jews" rejected Jesus and "good Jews" accepted him.
There are many people argue that the some teachings of the Catholic Church contradict scripture, but the Catholic Church through its interpretations disagrees. So, too, some Jews may have looked at Paul's message and felt that it contradicted their understanding of scripture while others did not.
Jennie wrote: the Thessalonians did not receive the gospel when they heard it because, though they knew the scriptures, they also were bound by their traditions...
That is an assumption that is not based on the scripture of the passage. Basically, the Thessalonian Jews were misrepresenting Paul's message either intentionally or unintentionally and charging Paul and his cohorts with treason. The Thessalonian Jews were obviously aware that Christianity was a spreading sect and they were scared of it and the possible discord it could bring upon their community.
Jennie wrote: the Bereans WERE called fair-minded both because they received the gospel readily AND because they searched the scriptures to compare the oral teachings to them.....They knew that Paul's words were God's word because, first they submitted to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and secondly they compared them to the written scriptures to be sure they were not being led astray.
These again are assumptions that are not found in a plain reading of the text. If anything the Bereans did NOT readily accept the Gospel until after they compared it to their understanding of the scriptures. The process that is described is more in keeping with forms of philosophical Logic that you would expect of Hellenistic Jews raised on Plato and Aristotle. Their praise is because they were willing to take the time examine the evidence critically instead of summarily rejecting it out of jealousy or fear like the Thessalonians.
Jennie wrote: Why should it make any difference that the Bereans used the Hebrew Scriptures, while today we can use both testaments?
Because this passage is used as an order to examine all things against scripture, while when put in context the Bereans really pitting the teachings of the NT against those of the old OT logically.
Jennie wrote: Sola Scriptura does not only suggest belief in scripture as the final authority, but it presupposes the readiness to accept the preached word by the conviction of the Holy Spirit which is what happened during the Reformation when people heard the gospel preached purely from scripture without the traditions and superstitions that had accumulated over the centuries
Steve Ray points out that one of the problems with the concept of "Sola Scriptura" is that the definition changes depending on which Protestant you're talking to.
And your definition presupposes that before the Protestant Reformation that the Holy Spirit was just absent from the development of the Catholic Christian Church.
Nevermind that after the Reformation the Holy Spirit apparently inspired millions of people to form all new traditions and superstitions over the centuries.
Jennie said: Sola Scriptura does not only suggest belief in scripture as the final authority, but it presupposes the readiness to accept the preached word by the conviction of the Holy Spirit which is what happened during the Reformation when people heard the gospel preached purely from scripture without the traditions and superstitions that had accumulated over the centuries
Boy, we have had so many different definition of sola scriptura given to us in the history of this blog. One thing is for sure, if a Catholic apologist offers a definition, someone will be sure to point out that isn't what sola scriptura means at all.
Oh, wait, I see Barbara has this one well in hand. Carry on, Barbara!
Those that believe in Sola Scriptura believe that the Holy Spirit works through the word to convict men of sin and bring repentance and faith. That is why I said Sola Scriptura presupposes the readiness to accept the preached word when convicted by the Holy Spirit. This is part of our belief about the word of God, whether preached or written.
Let me just pull a quote from the post, which cited this as the Thessalonian Jews' discontent with Paul.
They rejected the new teaching, deciding after three weeks of deliberation that Paul’s word contradicted the Torah. Their decision was not completely unjustified from their scriptural perspective. How could the Messiah of God be cursed by hanging on a tree like a common criminal, publicly displayed as one who bore the judgment of God? What kind of king and Messiah would that be? This seemed irreconcilable to them (see Simon J. Kistemaker, Acts [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1990], 614).
Actually, Paul was extremely scriptural in his application of scripture and the Thessalonians were not. Here is the scripture that supports Paul's position.
Isaiah 53:3-8
3He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Now who was adhering to scripture? Paul or the Thesssalonians?
Peace.
Hey guys, I am sola scriptura and yet I believe in new revelation. Sounds contradictory? Not at all. New revelation that is based upon Truth NEVER contradicts scripture. They are in complete harmony.
I would like someone to show me anything in the New Testament (new revelation) that contradicts the Old Testament.
Peace.
DOW, the author is not saying that Paul was preaching anything not in accordance with Scripture. He says that the THESSALONIANS decided Paul was not preaching in accordance with Scripture.
None of us is saying that Paul was not in accordance with Scripture. We all agree with the Bereans that Jesus fulfilled the OT prophesies.
Right now I'm at my parents' house watching the Superbowl, or rather my husband is watching it, and my stomach is more full than my brain, so if I happen to think of anything I'll chime in, but it may have to wait until tomorrow, or in the middle of the night when I'm up with indigestion :b
Kelly wrote:
"DOW, the author is not saying that Paul was preaching anything not in accordance with Scripture. He says that the THESSALONIANS decided Paul was not preaching in accordance with Scripture."
----------------------------------
I think the Thessalonian Jews had a poor understanding of scripture and that was why they could not accept what Paul was saying, and they were not open to learning Truth. They were interested in their petty grievances and jealouses, and thus their eyes and minds were blinded in error. The Bereans on the other hand were more open to learning and were teachable. They went and searched the scriptures themselves to verify that what Paul was saying was indeed Truth.
Peace.
DOW wrote: I would like someone to show me anything in the New Testament (new revelation) that contradicts the Old Testament.
I am not claiming that in any way shape. What I am saying is that what many Jews got in their Messiah was NOT was they expected at all based on how they interpreted the Hebrew Scriptures.
Many thought that the Messiah would be a political leader who would help overthrow their oppressors and give the Jews control of their earthly kingdom again. They thought in very physical terms rather than spiritual. This is why many Jews rejected Jesus.
It's easy for us in retrospect with all of the pieces put in place for us by the New Testament to see that Jesus fulfilled the OT. But to a Jew living at the time it would be less clear and may even APPEAR to be contradictory without really being so.
Just like Catholics teachings may APPEAR contrary to Scripture without really being so.;-)
What's interesting is that the attitude of the original Bereans was to confirm things compared to scripture, where as the attitude of modern "Bereans" appears to be about denying that things are true compared to scripture.
Barbara wrote:
Many thought that the Messiah would be a political leader who would help overthrow their oppressors and give the Jews control of their earthly kingdom again. They thought in very physical terms rather than spiritual. This is why many Jews rejected Jesus.
----------------------------------- And history has proven how wrong they were, and yet many understood and believed.
Peace.
"Just like Catholics teachings may APPEAR contrary to Scripture without really being so.;-)"
----------------------------------
The Thessalonian Jewish teachings not only appeared to be contrary to scripture (in the eyes of Paul), but were in fact contrary to scripture.
Now the Thessalonian Jews were not entirely wrong because the Old Testament does speak about a militant Messiah, but they ignored the scriptures about the suffering Messiah, and thus made a poor interpretation of scripture, because they were unable to reconcile apparently conflicting scriptures.
Paul was the one, who by the power of the Holy Spirit, was able to make a proper exegesis of those scriptures.
Peace.
DOW wrote: The Thessalonian Jewish teachings not only appeared to be contrary to scripture (in the eyes of Paul), but were in fact contrary to scripture.
Actually, I was referring to teachings of early Christians, including Paul, that may have appeared to be contrary to scripture but were not really. As you point out, some of the Jews may have been incorrectly forming their understanding of the Messiah based on one half of the equation.
Jesus was not the type of Messiah that many Jews expected.
Alright, I'm as willing as the next Catholic to exonerate the Jews for failing to see that Jesus fulfills OT prophecies, but please don't lose sight of what St. Paul says was the tradition he'd received, which we read today, as a matter of fact:
that Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures;
that he was buried;
that he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures;
In some specific ways, St. Paul asserts that Jesus is the type of expected Messiah.
Barbara,
I said:
the Bereans WERE called fair-minded both because they received the gospel readily AND because they searched the scriptures to compare the oral teachings to them.....They knew that Paul's words were God's word because, first they submitted to the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and secondly they compared them to the written scriptures to be sure they were not being led astray.
you said:
These again are assumptions that are not found in a plain reading of the text. If anything the Bereans did NOT readily accept the Gospel until after they compared it to their understanding of the scriptures. The process that is described is more in keeping with forms of philosophical Logic that you would expect of Hellenistic Jews raised on Plato and Aristotle. Their praise is because they were willing to take the time examine the evidence critically instead of summarily rejecting it out of jealousy or fear like the Thessalonians.
The passage in Acts 17 says:
11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
Why are you disputing the order of events that the scripture states: that the Bereans first readily received the word Paul preached and THEN they searched the scriptures to find out if what Paul preached was in accord with scripture? We just read the parable of the sower today and the idea of someone readily receiving the word implies that the word and the Spirit have tilled the soil so the seed of the word can take deep root. The Berean passage impies that they were open to the Spirit rather than responding in hatred and fear as the Thessalonians did. This is how the Pharisees and chief priests responded to Jesus, out of hatred that their place was being taken away and their sin was being exposed. Their hearts had not been prepared by an attitude of repentance because they felt they were already righteous.
Teresa wrote:
"Alright, I'm as willing as the next Catholic to exonerate the Jews for failing to see that Jesus fulfills OT prophecies, but please don't lose sight of what St. Paul says was the tradition he'd received, which we read today, as a matter of fact:
'that Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the Scriptures;
that he was buried;
that he was raised on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures'"
----------------------------------
Great quote Teresa; however I would not be so quick to 'exonerate' the unbelieving Jews, because many did believe while others did not believe or refused to believe(the scriptures/Paul).
BTW, I have the Old Testament scriptures to back up Paul's statement about Christ being raised from the dead according to the scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:4).
Hosea 6:2-3
"2After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
3Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth."
This "raise us up" refers to the resurrection of Old Testament saints that occured when Christ was raised from the dead on the third day. The "us" refers to God raising up both the saints and the Messiah from the dead. I have other scriptures to prove this if you want. Below is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Hosea in the New Testament.
Matthew 27:52-53:
52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
Peace.
Okay guys, gotta go, but please join me in a discussion on my blog about Jesus and Mary Magdalene. This should be interesting! Just in time for Valentine's day!
Jesus the God of Love.
Jennie, my understanding of the passage is that the Bereans were willing to listen to what Paul said, but listening and accepting are not the same thing...as this blog has proven many times over. They did not accept until they looked in the scriptures to back it up.
Moonshadow, I am not at all denying that Jesus fulfilled the requirements for the Messiah. I'm just trying to objectively look at how the Gospel message may have been perceived by 1st century Jews.
Keep in mind, too, that only a small percentage of Jews had access to copies of the Hebrew Scriptures to study and cross-reference with Paul's message. Many of the Jews who became Christians (especially the women) probably had a limited understanding of what the scriptures said about the Messiah based on what they had or had not been taught by their elders. Most probably converted based solely on their experiences with Jesus or one of the apostles.
Barbara,
I agree that the Bereans may not have fully believed until they checked the scriptures, but they were beginning to be convicted and to respond to the gospel. They seemed to have had a meek (responsive rather than reactive) attitude toward God.
In some specific ways, St. Paul asserts that Jesus is the type of expected Messiah.
*sigh* I feel that we are having two completely different conversations here. Here is what I understand Barbara to be saying.
1. There were MANY (not all) Jews who were expecting a militant Messiah.
2. When Paul and the Apostles presented the Gospel, they stated how Jesus DID fulfill ALL of the OT prophesies.
3. Those who were expecting a militant Messiah were interpreting Scripture incorrectly.
4. Paul and others pointed out how this was wrong using Scripture.
5. Some Jews then believed, while others did not.
DOW wrote: Great quote Teresa; however I would not be so quick to 'exonerate' the unbelieving Jews, because many did believe while others did not believe or refused to believe(the scriptures/Paul).
Barbara, as I understand her, was not saying that ALL JEWS rejected the Gospel. She is saying that those who rejected the Gospel were unbelieving.
You can't say that many of the unbelieving Jews did believe Jesus was the Messiah. They didn't believe. That's what makes them unbelieving.
Again, she wasn't talking about The Jews in a general sense, but in those SUCH AS the Thessalonians who REJECTED the Gospel.
Hillary,
I just want to say that I consider the idea that Mary Magdalene and Christ the Lord had a romantic relationship to be offensive, and the movie you mention in your post I consider to be blasphemous, whether the makers intended it that way or not; they don't know any better, being ignorant of the truth.
I am unfamiliar with the movie version from 2000. As I commented on DOW's blog, if it's anything like the Broadway revival it was much bawdier than the 1977 version.
I also mentioned that in the 1977 version Mary Magdalene is portrayed as having an unrequited romantic love for Jesus. It doesn't approach DaVinci Code territory, though.
I happen to love Jesus Christ Superstar. I don't think it's particularly blasphemous in and of itself (although some dramatic interpretations can certainly veer that direction). The problem is that as a dramatic work it takes certain suppositions about the inner motivations of the characters that the NT just doesn't address one way or another.
Although, I must admit that I found the questions in DOW's post kind of unsettling. Just more of the enigma that is Hillary.
Barbara wrote:
"Although, I must admit that I found the questions in DOW's post kind of unsettling. Just more of the enigma that is Hillary."
-----------------------------------
Hee, hee, hee Barbara. The "enigma that is Hillary." Okay, it is only fair that I reveal my religious background here. I have been commenting here long enough to 'trust' you guys.
Well, I ain't no weirdo from some weird religion. I am mainstream Protestant, but I won't reveal my denomination. The reason being, I don't want to be judged by my denomination and I don't want to have to answer for it on its behalf.
There are basically three kinds of believers, one of which I am. They are:-
1. The religious but not spiritual - these are regular church members who abide to the doctrines and teachings of their church but have no special spiritual relationship with God. I am not this.
2. The spiritual but not religious - these are people who claim special relationship with God but belongs to no church or religious organization. They follow the dictates of their own spiritual leanings. I am not this.
3. The spiritual and religious. I am this. I have church membership, but I also have a special personal relationship with God, which I draw upon for personal strength, and illumination. I believe in the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit, and I follow a nature-based form of spirituality, where I believe the laws of nature are also the laws of God, as well as the Ten Commandments.
I hope that solves the enigma that is Hillary. LOL!
As I said before, I am not here to promote any church. All I promote here is faith in God, and Him only. I leave the church promotion to my pastor!
Peace.
+JMJ+
I've been quietly reading along (and not even munching my popcorn!), with no intent to comment . . . until I read Hillary's last comment.
Now, I'm sorry to Elena that this will be drifting a bit off-topic, but I can't help wondering aloud when exactly in the history of theology did "spiritual" and "religious" become the two major categories--the X-axis and Y-axis, if you please--of believers?
I think it's a rather recent phenomenon (like since the '60's) ,when a lot of people started rebelling against any institution that they saw as an authority figure.
They wanted to denote that they still were believers but they did not wish to be apart of or submit to a specific church.
Then as more and more people became secularized in their beliefs they would claim a church or denomination (or religion) but not actually know or care about the teachings or authority of that church.
Of course, a favorite attack against Catholics is that they are religious (as in following the "empty" rituals and rules of the Church) but not spiritual because they "don't have a personal relationship with Jesus".
The very definitions seem to depend on if one is describing his or her self or if someone else is describing them. ;-)
To an extent I can understand why Hillary may not want to reveal her denomination...although that says to me that her denomination doesn't really matter to her very much...it's something that can be easily shed if a better-fitting one comes along.
It does make it harder to get a grasp of what angle she is coming from at times. Hillary...still an enigma. ;-)
Hillary said: yet I believe in new revelation.
Barbara C. said: that says to me that her denomination doesn't really matter to her very much.
Not that, Hillary's denomination matters very much to her. But the difficulty is who else identifies as such. Hillary'd prefer to distance herself from so-n-so.
Warm up your stones, ladies:
I consider myself religious but not particularly spiritual. I hope that God is fixing that.
Hi guys! I see you all have been talking about me behind my back :-)
Well, one of the reasons why I do not want to be associated with a denomination is that as a spiritual person I have greater spiritual freedom to worship God according to the Word and dictates of conscience. If I start to use a denominational label to describe myself, then I will be judged by the denominational standards and how well I am living up to them. I do not want to be judged thus. I stand on my own merits. In addition, some of my spiritual beliefs are not shared by my congregation at large, and I do not want anyone to think that those special beliefs which I hold are representative of my denomination. So if I say I am Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Methodist, right away you are going to think about what Baptists, or Presbyterians, or Methodist believe, and try to get me to defend those beliefs. I don't do apologetics.
Secretly, I am a little 'bored' with the lackluster spirituality that is shown by many mainstream churches. That's why I am here on the internet - searching for likeminded spiritual Christians!
I won't change my church though. I like the worship and the fellowship, but I need something more.
Peace.
I assumed you had comment notification on, and were reading along.
What do Methodists believe, anyway? I've never met a passionate Methodist, or visited a Methodist theology blog.
DOW wrote: So if I say I am Baptist, or Presbyterian, or Methodist, right away you are going to think about what Baptists, or Presbyterians, or Methodist believe, and try to get me to defend those beliefs.
Well, actually it just gives one a ballpark considering that two Baptist churches on the same street could have major differences in doctrine and practice.
Kelly wrote: What do Methodists believe, anyway?
LOL, after all that time you spent at the Wesleyan Center in college you don't know what Methodists believe? Of course, you weren't there for the theology. ;-)
+JMJ+
What do Methodists believe, anyway? I've never met a passionate Methodist, or visited a Methodist theology blog.
I am reminded of two things:
First, G.K. Chesterton's remark that no parent ever lay awake at night worrying that his child would grow up to be a Methodist. =P
Second, a personal friend's comment that he had never met a Methodist he didn't like. When I thought of all my Methodist friends, I found myself wholeheartedly agreeing with him!
Not that that helps you with doctrine, Kelly; it just came to mind. =)
Kelly wrote:
"What do Methodists believe, anyway? I've never met a passionate Methodist, or visited a Methodist theology blog."
Former Methodist here!
Historically, Wesley was an Anglican that liked to preach in the streets (most Anglicans back in that day kinda looked down on that). He argued with Catholics then about all the things we still argue about now, although now, the people doing the arguing are coming from much different perspectives, and I half suspect he'd have a hard time arguing with Catholics today, especially considering what's happened to the Wesleyan tradition since his death.
It should also be noted that he NEVER intended to split from the Anglican church. He died an Anglican.
The problem is, there really isn't a "Methodist teaching", because everyone is free to disagree. Which means you have a church hierarchy, but pastors are not held to the beliefs of the General Conference which meets every 4 years. This, then, means you can end up with a pastor who allows his daughter to throw the remaining Communion bread in touchdown formation because he's got a very fuzzy definition of what happens during consecration (Wesley did not).
I do know some very passionate, devout Methodists (my brother in law is a Methodist pastor), but it isn't their Methodism that makes them so, because practically speaking, there isn't anything "Methodist" that's truly distinctive. It just happens to be the organization within which they make their contribution to Christianity. Theologically, there are nuances to how things like justification and sanctification are defined, but honestly, only the pastors know about those differences, and it really doesn't come into conversation with the congregation. But you don't see people choosing the Methodist church over another denomination due to theology. Typically, it's because they see people striving to do God's work in the world and want to join in that, or because they are accepted as they are in a Methodist church. IOW, it's the people.
A lot of this "lack of anything distinctive" comes from the time in which John Wesley came of age. His theology was a mish mash of just about everything, although he was very passionate about his faith.
"I consider myself religious but not particularly spiritual. I hope that God is fixing that."
I very much doubt that.
I have nothing bad to say about Methodists. My grandparents were Methodists, although I am not. They gave me a firm foundation, and did a lot to instill religion in me from an early age. I remember when visiting my grandparents' home sneaking in their room to read "Paradise Lost." I have fond memories of going to church every Sunday. The formal worship was a bit boring by today's standards but I knew nothing different.
I still like formal worship, even today. I however prefer LIVELY, inspirational worship which is still formal, but I HATE casual worship. I cannot stand the loud blaring rock bands and disco lights in church, and the entertainment mentality. My idea is that I am in church to worship God, which is a pleasure. I am not there to be entertained by others! JMHO.
LOL, after all that time you spent at the Wesleyan Center in college you don't know what Methodists believe? Of course, you weren't there for the theology. ;-)
And Matt was never a Methodist! Actually, very few of the people at the Wesley Foundation were Methodist. So I guess they weren't there for the theology, either. ;)
I am actually aware of the historic background of Wesley and the foundation of Methodism. I've gotten the impression that modern Methodism is similar to the Lutheran church (except the Missori Synod) in that it bears little resemblance to the original.
Erin wrote in her great comment:
But you don't see people choosing the Methodist church over another denomination due to theology. Typically, it's because they see people striving to do God's work in the world and want to join in that, or because they are accepted as they are in a Methodist church. IOW, it's the people.
YES! That is exactly what I was trying to say. I've never met a person really passionate about Methodist theology, but I've met some very passionate Christians who are Methodist.
Kelly, you go girl! Learn some theology and snag a man in the process! Who says religion and romance do not mix? LOL!
Well, sure! If you want a church going man, you look for one at church. If you look in bars, then, well I'll stop there.
Karaoke bars excluded, of course, Barbara. ;)
because they are accepted as they are in a Methodist church. IOW, it's the people.
Yup, that's it exactly. I could very easily be a Methodist because they are very friendly and welcoming.
Well, Kelly, Dr. Snyder always referred to Methodism as "The Great Compromise" for the mixed Catholic/Baptist couple. I also wonder if it was his great compromise, because I think he was a Catholic at heart but knew his Pentecostal family would completely cut them off if he converted THAT far. It took them awhile to accept that he went Methodist.
(And I knew Matt wasn't Methodist, but I thought maybe some of the others were. The Wesleyan Center did a pretty decent recruitment drive, though...more fun and no preaching.)
"If I start to use a denominational label to describe myself, then I will be judged by the denominational standards and how well I am living up to them. I do not want to be judged thus. I stand on my own merits."
I wanted to say that I very much agree with this. I know that there are some online acquaintances who are rather anti-Catholic and do not know about my Tiber swim. I prefer to let my arguments stand on their own merit, rather than have someone's view colored by the label by my name. I will talk about my conversion if I see the Church being disparaged and feel the need to defend her, but if we're just discussing theology and ideas, then I'll simply present my view.
Post a Comment