15 Comments »

1. Kathryn said,

   November 17, 2006 @ 1:07 pm

   Amen.

2. john said,

   November 17, 2006 @ 1:21 pm

   Maybe that title was a bit strong... unfortunately it holds true when push comes to shove according to those whom I've asked. Unfortunately I cannot, in all honesty, change it.

   This is a challange to CTS students. Be warned, any words which attempt to justify democratic votes that determine the word of God are exposed as false already. Yet in the name of good academics, without judgement, feel free to try on this condition: If you fail to justify the democratic god, then you must submit to Jesus Christ as the head of the Church. If you fail to justify democracy as a means of determining God's word, then you must submit to the word of God as written in scripture as the sole authority in God's church.

   God shall lead His church. God Bless you all.

3. Marc said,

   November 17, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

   "any words which attempt to justify democratic votes that determine the word of God are exposed as false already"

   - You admit you refuse to listen to any opinion but your own.

   There is much arrogance in implying that your own interpretation of scripture is the correct interpretation.

   There is danger in it as well, if the copy you swear by happens to be a newer "re-translation" of the english bible: re-written to gently cater more to the current middle-class straight white Christian community. Different in both word and spirit from its Greek and Hebrew predecessors, the English bible grows even less pure in form, as interpreted and re-interpreted by human, faulty, mankind.

   You've probably heard this before. You'll probably soundly reject anything not in compliance with your own consideration. This is the mindset of the man who does not need others' inspiration to understand his "Word of God."

   Good luck to you.

4. john said,

   November 17, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

   Dear Mark,

   Greetings to you. May we both be compassionate in our debate.

   To quote you:
   "- You admit you refuse to listen to any opinion but your own. ""

   How so? By saying as you quoted, "any words which attempt to justify democratic votes that determine the word of God are exposed as false already"????

   I said "exposed", not "as per my opinion". It is the Spirit of Truth, which exposes the lies of the democratic god, not I. Do you actually contest the words I spoke or are you contesting that it is I who spoke them?? All I have spoken is all I have spoken. You were the only one to say it is my opinion, but far be it from me to cherish my opinion, which is just as worthless as your own. If I refused to listen to anyone's opinion then I would not have laid out a challenge to hear the opinions and words of others. Yet it is not opinions I'm interested in, it is words of truth that I am interested in. Opinions are interesting but of no real consequence.

   If you are disputing that I denounce democracy in the place of God's word, then just say so. If you abide in God's word over man's word, then what is your contention with me?

   Nothing in what I said implied in any way that my interpretation of scripture is worth anything at all. Perhaps you could prove your accusation with MY words rather than YOUR interpretation of what I said? At least draw a reasonable connection between my words and your own interpretation of them.

   All I have said is all I have said; the onus is on you if you wish to condemn me as placing my own interpretation above God's own word, for I mentioned nothing of the sort. Or is it because you assume that there exists only human interpretation and that God's Spirit is absent from our church that you add to my words the assumption that it is merely my opinion?

   God will prove the truth of what I write, for I only condemn what God has already condemned. That is how I know that "any words which attempt to justify democratic votes that determine the word of God are exposed as false already". God has exposed them as false already.

   Do you honestly contest what you quoted of me? By all means, prove the words false. But do not add to or subtract from what I say, for that is not what I say and by such means you only prove your own words to be false.

   I do understand that this can be a sensitive topic. I wish that someone wiser and softer than I could present it. Best wishes for the both of us.

   Take care,

   -John

5. ro said,

   November 17, 2006 @ 5:29 pm

   I'm surprised the head honchos would say they'd put fundamental Christian doctrines to a vote. I'll reserve judgement until I see something quotable. I really don't see how foundational truths would be put to the vote. Having said this, there are plenty of secondary issues which I believe are acceptable to place to a vote. Homosexuality, women clergy, etc., these are secondary issues that have evidence in both camps.

   I.E. Women ministers... You can argue till Kingdom come over, however, the tide is slowly changing in favour of ordination for all.

   Homosexuality: don't get me wrong, the act is clearly labeled as sin, however, what say you to those 'predisposed' to the condition....I certainly do not condone the act, but there is again some more dialogue to be had.

6. Marc said,

   November 17, 2006 @ 8:25 pm

   *handshake*

   I'm sorry, first off, for starting my previous comment with sharp accusation. My forum etiquette can still use some fine-tuning, I'm afraid.

   I'm not even sure what drew me to post here, as this post was not what I expected to find from my search, and normally I would have continued on.

   Anyway, to the point- I live on the US side, in a theological battleground for Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Born Again Christians, etc.

   I am a large fan of democracy operating within a church organization because, at least in theory, members of this church would have encouragement to search and study their scripture, and seek guidance from God in making decisions and setting standards for their church.

   Looking at the spectrum of churches today, it becomes obvious that people vary in their interpretation of scripture nearly as much as the lines on our individual faces.

   Many churches lead by force of fear and ignorance. Their members follow - blindly accepting foolish men's word because he claims to speak the "Word of God", and can throw out seemingly applicable scripture quotes to shut up anyone opposed.

   As Ro mentioned, some doctrines are clear-cut. Other more particular points require deeper understanding of scripture than what is apparent at face-value. I believe we are required to come together with all our unique talents and God-given gifts to inform and instruct one another.

   If we must have a Church, a Church must have policy. Sometimes we get it wrong. Democracy serves a church in cases where the one leading refuses to bend where he, she or they, through pride, arrogance, tradition or otherwise, will not back down on their own belief. Even when scripture and the insightful God-led inspiration of the people confirms that belief to be false. The Catholic cabal and their many current fooleries come quickly to mind.

   I took offense to your comment:

   "any words which attempt to justify democratic votes that determine the word of God are exposed as false already"

   because this line does not invite discussion or debate. This line, in my mind, translates to: "I am right, don't argue with me."

   Pardon the fixation.

   I'm out of time for today. I'd like to edit, but what I've written must stand if I'm going to post. It's probably too long as is.

   Anyway, goodbye for now.

   -Marc

7. john said,

   November 18, 2006 @ 12:59 am

   Yo Ro!
   Nice to have you in on things. You said:

   "I'm surprised the head honchos would say they'd put fundamental Christian doctrines to a vote. I'll reserve judgement until I see something quotable."

   As you rightfully should, though taking my word for what it is worth should count for a likely possibility(which is why I mentioned to ask them yourself for first-hand knowledge). Voting on whether or not Jesus is Lord was an 'if and if' circumstance, where there was division and disagreement such that a decision was 'required'. Democratic voting as being the highest decision making authority was my point. However, I must temper my little introduction on that point, the Dean never mentioned voting on whether Jesus was Lord from what I recall, we only talked about his desire to see a vote on women clergy. Forgive the slip please.. I was trying to give a provocative intro to 'fire things up' for the benefit of your forum. Other than that though, if you ask them who decides when push comes to shove you will receive an identical answer unless they have had a change of heart and church policy: Democratic voting is the highest decision making authority. Yes, it is surprising.

8. john said,

   November 18, 2006 @ 2:07 am

   Now as far as 'small' issues are concerned, I can agree only when it is not a matter of the word of God, which is the same to me as a large issue. If the issue is if a church desires to move from one building to the next, join with another church, have pink or yellow paint on the walls, those are all valid things to vote on because they are a matter of what the church wants. I would even agree it is perfectly valid for people to vote on whether or not THEY THINK Jesus Christ is Lord, because that is a matter of their own thoughts. We can even vote on what WE THINK God's word is, because it is a matter of what WE think. The heresy begins when we put our own words in the place of God's word. The matter I speak of is in putting the WORD OF GOD to a vote in order to determine what it is. Do you see the difference I speak of? Our word verses God's word? We must not confuse the two for that is precisely the problem with the democratic god. Specifically, the democratic god is a god whose word and truth are NOT from the One True Living God, but from the democratic process of humanity. Democracy has it's place in the church but it must be understood for what it is, 'rule for and by the people' not 'rule for and by God', because there is a difference between us and God. There is a difference between our human word and the word of God. The difference is a matter of the source of the word, human verses God.

   It is late and I still have things to do before bed. I'll continue in the morning as I have no clue if my words make any sense this late. Sparky discussion eh?

   No worries about anything btw Marc. I'd like to address the issues you raise tommorow.

   God Bless and good night.

9. john said,

   November 18, 2006 @ 6:23 pm

   VOTING ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

   I shall take this topic that is generally agreed upon as being a valid subject of church voting and prove that it is a hypocritical lie to vote on it.

   First point: The churches teaching on same-sex marriage is a matter of God's Law. While I strongly feel we ought to be understanding and compassionate about it, the churches teaching is still a matter of God's Law and that is how it is preached.

   Second point: When the truth of God's Law on same-sex marriage is put to a democratic vote we are subjecting the truth of God's Law to man's popular opinion. While this does encourage study, it also teaches all members that God's Law is up to them to decide. This leads to the question: Is God's Law a matter of popular opinion?

   Third point: As we see when churches DO vote on same-sex marriage, they turn God into a liar. One church will vote yes, another no, another will say it is up to the congregation. Does God bless same-sex marriage? According to the democratic god the answer is both "yes" and "no" and "it is up to you", in other words the churches teach that not only does God's Law change, but that it is self-contradictory and variable depending on which congregation you attend. This leads to the question: Does the truth of the morality of same-sex marriage really change congregation to congregation, from one part of the country to the next or over time?

   Summary: So if we are willing to acknowledge that God's Law on same-sex marriage is dependent on human opinion and variable between regions, congregations and over time, then at least we are consistent in saying it is justifiable to vote on this 'smaller' issue. If we are not able to acknowledge these things then we are hypocritical liars when we say that it is justifiable to vote on same-sex marriage.

   End point: Voting on the word of God is never justifiable (and I always mean democratic voting), for it places God's word in subjugation to man's own word instead of the other way around. When we say we submit to the word of God, but that word of God has been submitted to our own word, we are simply making things up. It is no wonder to me that liberal Christianity (those who vote the most) is on the most rapid decline in our western culture. Rational people simply cannot believe that a God of Truth would lie and contradict Himself just because humans disagree. It is clear to an outsider that mainstream non-Catholic Christianity is man-made on all the contemporary issues because it is so self-contradictory.

   Take it easy.

10. ro said,

    November 20, 2006 @ 2:05 pm

    I still feel we can discuss and vote on the Word of God because what we have before us can be open to interpretation. Again, I don't feel the fundamental issues require votes, but others do. There is hardly any evidence or history for 'rapture' theology. Dispensationalism is a brand new movement that is hugely popular in the Western world particularly in the States. The Book series, 'LEft Behind' is huge, but it's theology is grossly incorrect.

    Now do I walk into a church and proclaim the Word of God and destroy everything these people hold dear? No. I can't approach eschatology in this fashion, and although dispensationalist eschatology is hugely flawed, it can be supported (mind a far stretch) through Scripture. Eschatologies MAY vary, BOTH being correct under the scrutiny of Scripture....(one better though :P).

    Catholics can get to heaven....? Sure! Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Anglicans, heck, maybe even the United Church, but all have hugely different creeds etc. The minor issues are open, but I bet the constitution is the same for fundamental issues.

    Is homosexuality a fundamental issues? Of course. The Bible clear cut renouncing same-sex marriage. You can't get around this, love does not equate to the biblical sanctity of marriage. So you can't put this item to vote.... I wish churches would just stand up and have the gutspa to stand firm.

11. john said,

    November 21, 2006 @ 1:48 am

    Yo Ro,
    Let us have this conversation. Let us discuss and agree where we can. I shall quote you and respond.

    "I still feel we can discuss and vote on the Word of God because what we have before us can be open to interpretation. Again, I don't feel the fundamental issues require votes, but others do. "

    Any reality is open to interpretation. If you say you hate my guts I can interpret that as your undying love for me. If you say something I don't understand I can interpret it as something I do understand. We both know that everybody has an interpretation of scripture. Likewise, we can vote on God's word. We can vote that God hates Jews. We can vote that all religions are pathways to Him. For the reasoning I have given, I see no validity in your argument. Not any human interpretation nor any human voting has any bearing on the truth of the word of God. For we can interpret how we like and vote how we like, but the word of God is not up to us.

    Can we not agree that God's word is truth? That the Lord does not lie or contradict Himself? These are truths upon which we both must stand in order to be able to converse with each other. We must be reasonable, acknowledging that when two statements contradict each other both cannot be true. If your theology contradicts mine both cannot be true. The word of God is truth and upon this we must agree.
    We must agree that the word of God never lies or contradicts itself. If you will agree to these things then please say you agree. In fact, to avoid any confusion I will wait until I hear back from you.

    Hope your day goes well and I look forward to hearing back from you.

    -John

12. Dede said,

    November 21, 2006 @ 11:42 am

    I like your thought process John. And I would agree with you . . . but . . . historically most everything the church has accepted as fundamental doctrine or theology was accepted and passed through the democratic votes of councils of the third century all the way till today. Just look at our scripture, it was declared canon and accepted at a council by democratic vote. The doctrine of the Trinity, sacraments, baptism . . . Almost everything we hold and believe as sacred was voted on.

    More importantly, it took hundreds of years and many councils to get these things right, or at least the way they exist today.

    Yeah, the homosexual debate is huge and controversial. But even if 3/4 of the Christian churches passed it by democratic vote doesn't mean its been accepted or will be historically accepted by the Church.

    Just look at the United Church. How long are they going to last really? How great is their impact in the Church today? Nill. They've been sidelined as irrelevant and irreverent.

    As long as there are believers out there, like us, willing to die on their hill for the things they believe the truth will continue to be spoken into the church and we can pray it will be spoken out of the church as well.

13. john said,

    November 21, 2006 @ 11:43 pm

    Thanks Dede,

    I have faith in God that He knows what He is doing. This is an issue which has touched me deeply and I must confess I feel called to raise awareness of it. No matter how often in history, no matter how common it is today, it is one of those matter of fact things that our word cannot determine God's word. The quote I posted from Luther says the exact same thing to me. It is interesting how we face the same issues over and over again. Perhaps I'll pull out some great bible quotes expressing the same thing.

    Now ROOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

    Don't be a devil's advocate too much. I know we both sometimes argue for the sake of argument and this would be one of those issues to challenge. After all, it is extremely difficult for me to believe that something so self-contradictory could possibly go on in the churches. Yet as time goes on I hear more and more people receiving this calling to stand up against the democratic god and firmly plant our selves on God's word. I wish I hadn't made the title as it is because it isn't absolutely true, it is only true when the Alliance church actually does determine the word of God by a vote. On that note, every time I sin I am following a false god as well. My haste in 'firing things up' has taught me that I have a damn big mouth and loose tongue. (am I allowed to say 'damn' here?)

    Anyways Ro, I know you are quite orthodox and do not equate human thought/ opinion to the word of God. Nor will you stand up and say that the majority of human thoughts/ opinions/ interpretations can determine the word of God. I know you will confess that the word of God is God's word and not our own. Well... maybe I'm making an assumption but I feel it is quite safe.

    I encourage everyone to challenge this both ways and explore what is happening. I believe this is a lot bigger and uglier than anyone would like. I do not condemn the churches, I condemn following the democratic god. Shoot, I am a member of the ELCIC!!! I am working towards being a pastor in that church!! It is the same old story of putting ourselves before God. As a Christian I love God's church and it is very hard to see it die out. It is hard to see people discouraged because "God's word" contradicts itself in the churches on all the controversial issues. As a Christian I must speak against following popular opinion instead of God's word and I must expose the lie that results from the false system of placing higher authority on popular opinion than on the word of God.

    We must all stand up for what is good, right and true. We must all be aware that our own thoughts and the majority of people's thoughts cannot determine the truth of God. Many of us here will one day be preachers, I pray that the preachers will preach the word of God only. Today I am radical, 60 years ago I was just a normal Christian, maybe tomorrow I will just be a regular Christian again.

    If anyone has trouble understanding why it is wrong to vote to determine the word of God, speak up and I will try to be gentle.

    God Bless you all and good night.

14. Jub said,

    November 22, 2006 @ 4:53 pm

    What's the ELCIC?

15. john said,

    November 22, 2006 @ 9:16 pm

    The Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

• Most Popular Posts

  • Vatican Releases Top Ten Ways to Drive
  • Those Fanatical Atheists - Rebuttal (Thoughts)
  • Springs Church Calgary is a Scam?
  • Jehovah Witnesses Killing Babies?
  • Stupid Christians Continue Idiotic Evolution Argument?
  • Yea mon, Bob Marley hits Anglican Hymnal
  • Two men? Brother and sister? What's the diff?
  • Read PomoTheo With Your Cell Phones
  • New Design and Forum on the Way
  • Canada to Deport Mexican Bastards

• Blog Categories

  • Apologetics
  • Christian News
  • Church Life
  • Church Politics
  • Creation-Evolution
  • Entertainment
  • Missional
  • Pastoral
  • Politics
  • PoMo
  • QOD
  • Theology
  • Uncategorized
• • 

• Archives

  Select Month November 2008  (1) October 2008  (2) September 2008  (5) August 2008  (3) July 2008  (3) June 2008  (4) April 2008  (1) March 2008  (1) February 2008  (2) January 2008  (1) December 2007  (4) November 2007  (5) October 2007  (2) September 2007  (2) August 2007  (5) July 2007  (11) June 2007  (6) May 2007  (6) April 2007  (7) March 2007  (10) February 2007  (15) January 2007  (15) December 2006  (15) November 2006  (31)