I should be doing homework...but...
Apr. 10th, 2005 01:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
songofjoy02Source: Denominations
I wanted to explain what I really think about the questions on the Denominations Quiz...because I don't think the options given were always that great.
1. What should the relationship be between Scripture and church tradition?
They should be given equal authority, for the Holy Spirit speaks through both.
Early church tradition should be given strong authority (even as a test of orthodoxy, though not quite equal with Scripture), before the church became caught in scholastic nonsense in the Middle Ages.
Consulting church tradition is useful for the development of creeds and other formulations, but is by no means important compared with Scripture.
Creeds and other documents from church tradition should be used little or not at all, for Scripture is clear enough to speak on its own.
The honest truth is that I picked the one I italicized, but I also very much agree with the idea that EARLY church tradition should be something of a test of orthodoxy...because some very important Councils were held back then that paved the way for many of the doctrines we hold dear today. In another sense, though, I do believe that Scripture stands on its own...and that it is sufficient. To emphasize church tradition seems inappropriate to me.
2. What is the relationship between the Law of God and the Christian?
"We are not under law but under grace" - This statement not only means that the Law cannot condemn believers, but also that they may live whatever life they want and still be saved.
Only those portions of the Law that are re-stated in the New Testament are binding on believers - all of the Old Testament has been set aside for the Christian unless re-instated in the New.
Only the ceremonial (and possibly judicial) portion of the Old Testament Law has been fulfilled, and believers are still obliged to obey the Law, though it no longer condemns them. If they violate it without repentance, however, they show they are not Christians.
Yes, I picked the first one...but I really didn't like the phrasing. In a technical sense, though, I believe that the believer who is truly under grace will be living appropriately even while "they may live whatever life they want"--because that WILL be the life they want, by grace. At the same time, I practically agree with some of the other answers...that the O.T. stuff that really applies to us is mentioned in the N.T. (whether I would call it binding is another issue). I'm still not sure exactly what I think of the third answer because I haven't studied enough to come to a strong conclusion on what Christ's fulfillment of the Law does mean for us on a practical basis.
3. What is the correct understanding of the Biblical topic of predestination?
God predestines all things and elects a people to salvation; however, it is possible for them to lose their eternal salvation.
God doesn't predestine all things and only elects to save those whom He knew ahead of time would believe in Him.
God predestines all things, and elects some people to salvation while actively reprobating others and sending them to Hell (in a manner consistent with second causes, namely their free will).
I don't know, really...I see ways in which the last two could both be shown from Scripture. I'm still a little bit shaky in my understanding of the interaction of God's omnipotence and man's "free will." Within the scope of God's power, though, I do believe that both definitely exist. Is His election based exclusively on foreknowledge, or did He actually decide in advance who would and wouldn't be saved? Sorry...this kind of stuff makes my brain spin...
4. What is your view regarding speaking in tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Speaking in tongues is the immediate evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit (which occurs after salvation), and is the privilege of all people baptized in the Spirit for the rest of their lives.
Speaking in tongues is not the result of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, but is a gift given to some believers for the edification of the church.
The word "tongues" in the N.T. means actual languages, and was primarily a first-century sign to validate the apostles' commission from God, and largely ceased once the N.T. was written.
That was such a hard choice! I actually agree with parts of one and two. In the N.T., speaking in tongues was an immediate evidence in most, if not all, situations in which people were baptized in the Holy Spirit (a potentially post-salvation event). However, Scripture also makes it very clear that this gift was to be for the edification of believers...and also that not everyone would have the same gifts. How it all applies to today, I'm still not quite sure. I certainly believe there's still room for the gifts, even speaking in tongues. However, I don't speak in tongues...and I don't know if that's a gift God will ever give me. I see it being for personal edification in a private setting or for public edification WITH INTERPRETATION in a corporate setting.
5. If someone is saved, can he ever lose his salvation?
This is the wrong question, because it presumes a revival-like notion of walking the aisle and "making a decision for Christ," which is foreign to Scripture.
Yes, someone who is eternally saved can lose his salvation by failing to persevere.
No, someone who is saved can never lose his salvation, no matter what he does or what happens.
The phrasing here is a little biased, in my opinion.;-) If a man's salvation is based on what he does, then I suppose he can lose it. However, I don't believe in a works-based salvation. On the other hand, faith without works is dead...so someone who is saved should be a doer of the Word (see James 1-2). Now that second option...doesn't it look a little contradictory? Someone can lose eternal salvation? LOL! Sorry, but that just doesn't even make sense.
6. What is the correct attitude regarding things like moderate drinking and ballroom dancing?
They're OK if you don't get too crazy about it and abuse your liberty in Christ.
Drinking and dancing are forms of worldliness, which every Christian must reject.
Just for the record, I've never done either. LOL! But I do think that both are acceptable as long as you don't "abuse your liberty in Christ."
7. When did the church begin?
In the New Testament. In the Old Testament God's people was Israel, but God established a new covenant with an entirely new people in the New Testament. The church and Israel are separate bodies in God's plan of salvation.
The church can be seen as the same body as Israel, except with new characteristics in the New Testament. God doesn't have any future plans for the nation of Israel as distinct from the church.
Actually, I think I agree even with the phrasing of the answer I picked on this one.
8. What type of church government is most Biblical?
Congregational - the most basic level of the church is the local church or congregation, and most decisions are either made by the congregation as a whole (by voting) or by the pastor(s)/elders.
Presbyterian - the most basic level of the church is the presbytery, a body of elders, equal in rank, who administer a grouping of local churches within the presbytery.
Hierarchical/episcopal - fundamental level of the church is the diocese, ruled by a bishop with priests/ministers beneath him in local churches.
This is the way it has been at nearly all of the churches I have attended. The potential for corruption in larger hierarchies is something I prefer to try to avoid. Not that small churches can't have their own problems...
9. What type of worship is most suitable for a Sunday morning church service?
A traditional service mainly focused on the sermon, with traditional psalms and/or hymns and a minimal amount of "ritual."
A contemporary service, focused mainly on a practical, relevant sermon, and with a lot of contemporary music and instruments.
A formal, liturgical service with a roughly equal amount of time dedicated to the sermon and to the other elements, usually or always including communion.
I would have picked one and two for my answers...I think eliminating purely ritualistic elements is good and that singing psalms/hymns is Scriptural...but I also believe that we need to have "a practical, relevant sermon" and I don't have a strong objection to music simply because it's contemporary. I would have preferred a more contemporary one at the closing for our service this morning because the one I was thinking of happened to be much more appropriate than what we sang. LOL!
10. What is your view regarding the Sabbath or Lord's Day?
The God-ordained day of worship is Sunday in the New Testament, in order to commemorate Christ's resurrection on that day.
There is no exact or rough equivalent of the Sabbath in the New Testament, so the church may meet any day, and not necessarily Sunday.
The Sabbath was Saturday in the Old Testament and must remain Saturday in the New, in order to honor the Fourth Commandment.
I can't even remember if I answered this question. I don't think that the answers really fit my opinion. First of all, the Sabbath as Saturday never changed. However, Jesus did say that the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. I think it's great to celebrate Christ's Resurrection every Sunday. But to say that the Sabbath is changed to Sunday? I just don't see how that could be reasonable or necessary...we need to take a weekly day of rest, but I don't know that it necessarily has to be the same day we go to church. The early believers, no doubt, had a full day's work before meeting to celebrate the Resurrection on Sundays.
11. What is the correct belief concerning baptism?
Only adult believers past the age of accountability should be baptized, and baptism is mainly just an outward sign of an inward reality (regeneration).
Only adult believers past the age of accountability should be baptized, and through baptism we are made members of Christ's body and given new life.
Both adult believers and their children should be baptized, though the child's baptism is really only significant if he invites Christ into his heart when he is older.
Both adult believers and their children should be baptized, and through baptism all become heirs of eternal life and are incorporated into God's family.
I think I might have picked the first answer...although the "adult" in it kind of turned me off to the answer. I think that only believers should be baptized and that it's an outward identification with an inward reality.
12. What is the correct belief concerning the Lord's Supper/communion/the Eucharist?
The bread and wine are actually changed in substance to Christ's body and blood, so that they are no more bread and wine in essence, but exclusively the body and blood of our Lord.
The bread and wine are changed so that they become one in substance with Christ's body and blood, that their essence is changed into the body and blood without losing their natural properties.
The bread and wine remain only bread and wine in substance, but by partaking them, faithful believers receive Christ's physical body and blood through the power of the Spirit.
The bread and wine remain only bread and wine in substance, and are not means of grace, but are simply a sign of what they represent and a memorial of Christ's sacrifice.
I picked the last answer, but I think it might be an oversimplification because I think there is great significance in taking communion. However, I do not believe in transubstantiation.
13. Who should be permitted to come to the communion table?
All those who express faith in Jesus Christ should be invited, and no one should be turned away unless he does not identify himself as a Christian.
Those who express faith in Christ and have been baptized should be invited, and church officials should "fence" the table to ensure that no excommunicant or heretic partakes of the elements.
Only those who are members of your own denomination should be invited.
Nope, I'm not a Baptist...or Catholic...or exclusivistic, really. Scripturally, only believers are to partake. I suppose that those who have made it more rigid have done so to try to ensure that only believers would partake, though, so I can't complain (even if I don't think they've been particularly successful).
14. What should the relationship be between church and state?
The state should not have an official institutional church, but it should abide by the Law of God in all matters and should recognize Him; and morality can be enforced.
The state should not have an official institutional church, and should stay out of matters of conscience, morality and religion, neither encouraging nor discouraging them; faith is a private matter.
Not only should religion and state be separate, but Christians should not be involved in government roles, including fighting in the military, because ours is a heavenly calling and we serve a different kingdom.
If the state stayed out of everything that could possibly relate to faith, we wouldn't have a very free country, would we? Where do you make the differentiation? Sorry I'm not too clear in expressing this...but I just really don't think there could be many laws without some kind of moral basis!
15. What is the future of people when they die?
They go either to Heaven or Hell in a state of consciousness, and the bodies are raised on the last day to rejoin their souls, either to eternal life or eternal damnation.
They go to Heaven, Hell, or purgatory (if they're headed for Heaven but need to be cleansed of their sins first), and the bodies are raised on the last day to rejoin their souls, either to eternal life or eternal damnation.
They are unconscious - the saved until they're raised up to everlasting life, the wicked until they're raised up and consumed.
The first answer about sums it up.
16. What is your belief regarding eschatology (the "end times")?
The rapture is imminent, when believers are taken off the Earth, followed by a period of tribulation for unbelievers, after which Christ returns to earth with the believers to reign for 1,000 years.
^ Above view, except the believers reign with Christ from heaven during the 1,000 years instead of earth, and this is the period for judgement of unbelievers.
The 1,000 years are not literal but symbolic of the period between Christ's 1st and 2nd comings (now). There is no separate rapture for believers, and both believers and non-believers will be resurrected at the same time.
I have not studied eschatology extensively, but the other answers definitely do not fit what I have learned.
ETA: Don't get too worried about where I said I hadn't drawn firm conclusions. My current opinion is probably about as strong as most people's (possibly even moreso, in some cases and respects), but I like to have a very firm backup for the things that I say I believe...because it takes a lot of evidence for me to reach absolute conviction.=)
I wanted to explain what I really think about the questions on the Denominations Quiz...because I don't think the options given were always that great.
1. What should the relationship be between Scripture and church tradition?
They should be given equal authority, for the Holy Spirit speaks through both.
Early church tradition should be given strong authority (even as a test of orthodoxy, though not quite equal with Scripture), before the church became caught in scholastic nonsense in the Middle Ages.
Consulting church tradition is useful for the development of creeds and other formulations, but is by no means important compared with Scripture.
Creeds and other documents from church tradition should be used little or not at all, for Scripture is clear enough to speak on its own.
The honest truth is that I picked the one I italicized, but I also very much agree with the idea that EARLY church tradition should be something of a test of orthodoxy...because some very important Councils were held back then that paved the way for many of the doctrines we hold dear today. In another sense, though, I do believe that Scripture stands on its own...and that it is sufficient. To emphasize church tradition seems inappropriate to me.
2. What is the relationship between the Law of God and the Christian?
"We are not under law but under grace" - This statement not only means that the Law cannot condemn believers, but also that they may live whatever life they want and still be saved.
Only those portions of the Law that are re-stated in the New Testament are binding on believers - all of the Old Testament has been set aside for the Christian unless re-instated in the New.
Only the ceremonial (and possibly judicial) portion of the Old Testament Law has been fulfilled, and believers are still obliged to obey the Law, though it no longer condemns them. If they violate it without repentance, however, they show they are not Christians.
Yes, I picked the first one...but I really didn't like the phrasing. In a technical sense, though, I believe that the believer who is truly under grace will be living appropriately even while "they may live whatever life they want"--because that WILL be the life they want, by grace. At the same time, I practically agree with some of the other answers...that the O.T. stuff that really applies to us is mentioned in the N.T. (whether I would call it binding is another issue). I'm still not sure exactly what I think of the third answer because I haven't studied enough to come to a strong conclusion on what Christ's fulfillment of the Law does mean for us on a practical basis.
3. What is the correct understanding of the Biblical topic of predestination?
God predestines all things and elects a people to salvation; however, it is possible for them to lose their eternal salvation.
God doesn't predestine all things and only elects to save those whom He knew ahead of time would believe in Him.
God predestines all things, and elects some people to salvation while actively reprobating others and sending them to Hell (in a manner consistent with second causes, namely their free will).
I don't know, really...I see ways in which the last two could both be shown from Scripture. I'm still a little bit shaky in my understanding of the interaction of God's omnipotence and man's "free will." Within the scope of God's power, though, I do believe that both definitely exist. Is His election based exclusively on foreknowledge, or did He actually decide in advance who would and wouldn't be saved? Sorry...this kind of stuff makes my brain spin...
4. What is your view regarding speaking in tongues and the baptism of the Holy Spirit?
Speaking in tongues is the immediate evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit (which occurs after salvation), and is the privilege of all people baptized in the Spirit for the rest of their lives.
Speaking in tongues is not the result of being baptized in the Holy Spirit, but is a gift given to some believers for the edification of the church.
The word "tongues" in the N.T. means actual languages, and was primarily a first-century sign to validate the apostles' commission from God, and largely ceased once the N.T. was written.
That was such a hard choice! I actually agree with parts of one and two. In the N.T., speaking in tongues was an immediate evidence in most, if not all, situations in which people were baptized in the Holy Spirit (a potentially post-salvation event). However, Scripture also makes it very clear that this gift was to be for the edification of believers...and also that not everyone would have the same gifts. How it all applies to today, I'm still not quite sure. I certainly believe there's still room for the gifts, even speaking in tongues. However, I don't speak in tongues...and I don't know if that's a gift God will ever give me. I see it being for personal edification in a private setting or for public edification WITH INTERPRETATION in a corporate setting.
5. If someone is saved, can he ever lose his salvation?
This is the wrong question, because it presumes a revival-like notion of walking the aisle and "making a decision for Christ," which is foreign to Scripture.
Yes, someone who is eternally saved can lose his salvation by failing to persevere.
No, someone who is saved can never lose his salvation, no matter what he does or what happens.
The phrasing here is a little biased, in my opinion.;-) If a man's salvation is based on what he does, then I suppose he can lose it. However, I don't believe in a works-based salvation. On the other hand, faith without works is dead...so someone who is saved should be a doer of the Word (see James 1-2). Now that second option...doesn't it look a little contradictory? Someone can lose eternal salvation? LOL! Sorry, but that just doesn't even make sense.
6. What is the correct attitude regarding things like moderate drinking and ballroom dancing?
They're OK if you don't get too crazy about it and abuse your liberty in Christ.
Drinking and dancing are forms of worldliness, which every Christian must reject.
Just for the record, I've never done either. LOL! But I do think that both are acceptable as long as you don't "abuse your liberty in Christ."
7. When did the church begin?
In the New Testament. In the Old Testament God's people was Israel, but God established a new covenant with an entirely new people in the New Testament. The church and Israel are separate bodies in God's plan of salvation.
The church can be seen as the same body as Israel, except with new characteristics in the New Testament. God doesn't have any future plans for the nation of Israel as distinct from the church.
Actually, I think I agree even with the phrasing of the answer I picked on this one.
8. What type of church government is most Biblical?
Congregational - the most basic level of the church is the local church or congregation, and most decisions are either made by the congregation as a whole (by voting) or by the pastor(s)/elders.
Presbyterian - the most basic level of the church is the presbytery, a body of elders, equal in rank, who administer a grouping of local churches within the presbytery.
Hierarchical/episcopal - fundamental level of the church is the diocese, ruled by a bishop with priests/ministers beneath him in local churches.
This is the way it has been at nearly all of the churches I have attended. The potential for corruption in larger hierarchies is something I prefer to try to avoid. Not that small churches can't have their own problems...
9. What type of worship is most suitable for a Sunday morning church service?
A traditional service mainly focused on the sermon, with traditional psalms and/or hymns and a minimal amount of "ritual."
A contemporary service, focused mainly on a practical, relevant sermon, and with a lot of contemporary music and instruments.
A formal, liturgical service with a roughly equal amount of time dedicated to the sermon and to the other elements, usually or always including communion.
I would have picked one and two for my answers...I think eliminating purely ritualistic elements is good and that singing psalms/hymns is Scriptural...but I also believe that we need to have "a practical, relevant sermon" and I don't have a strong objection to music simply because it's contemporary. I would have preferred a more contemporary one at the closing for our service this morning because the one I was thinking of happened to be much more appropriate than what we sang. LOL!
10. What is your view regarding the Sabbath or Lord's Day?
The God-ordained day of worship is Sunday in the New Testament, in order to commemorate Christ's resurrection on that day.
There is no exact or rough equivalent of the Sabbath in the New Testament, so the church may meet any day, and not necessarily Sunday.
The Sabbath was Saturday in the Old Testament and must remain Saturday in the New, in order to honor the Fourth Commandment.
I can't even remember if I answered this question. I don't think that the answers really fit my opinion. First of all, the Sabbath as Saturday never changed. However, Jesus did say that the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. I think it's great to celebrate Christ's Resurrection every Sunday. But to say that the Sabbath is changed to Sunday? I just don't see how that could be reasonable or necessary...we need to take a weekly day of rest, but I don't know that it necessarily has to be the same day we go to church. The early believers, no doubt, had a full day's work before meeting to celebrate the Resurrection on Sundays.
11. What is the correct belief concerning baptism?
Only adult believers past the age of accountability should be baptized, and baptism is mainly just an outward sign of an inward reality (regeneration).
Only adult believers past the age of accountability should be baptized, and through baptism we are made members of Christ's body and given new life.
Both adult believers and their children should be baptized, though the child's baptism is really only significant if he invites Christ into his heart when he is older.
Both adult believers and their children should be baptized, and through baptism all become heirs of eternal life and are incorporated into God's family.
I think I might have picked the first answer...although the "adult" in it kind of turned me off to the answer. I think that only believers should be baptized and that it's an outward identification with an inward reality.
12. What is the correct belief concerning the Lord's Supper/communion/the Eucharist?
The bread and wine are actually changed in substance to Christ's body and blood, so that they are no more bread and wine in essence, but exclusively the body and blood of our Lord.
The bread and wine are changed so that they become one in substance with Christ's body and blood, that their essence is changed into the body and blood without losing their natural properties.
The bread and wine remain only bread and wine in substance, but by partaking them, faithful believers receive Christ's physical body and blood through the power of the Spirit.
The bread and wine remain only bread and wine in substance, and are not means of grace, but are simply a sign of what they represent and a memorial of Christ's sacrifice.
I picked the last answer, but I think it might be an oversimplification because I think there is great significance in taking communion. However, I do not believe in transubstantiation.
13. Who should be permitted to come to the communion table?
All those who express faith in Jesus Christ should be invited, and no one should be turned away unless he does not identify himself as a Christian.
Those who express faith in Christ and have been baptized should be invited, and church officials should "fence" the table to ensure that no excommunicant or heretic partakes of the elements.
Only those who are members of your own denomination should be invited.
Nope, I'm not a Baptist...or Catholic...or exclusivistic, really. Scripturally, only believers are to partake. I suppose that those who have made it more rigid have done so to try to ensure that only believers would partake, though, so I can't complain (even if I don't think they've been particularly successful).
14. What should the relationship be between church and state?
The state should not have an official institutional church, but it should abide by the Law of God in all matters and should recognize Him; and morality can be enforced.
The state should not have an official institutional church, and should stay out of matters of conscience, morality and religion, neither encouraging nor discouraging them; faith is a private matter.
Not only should religion and state be separate, but Christians should not be involved in government roles, including fighting in the military, because ours is a heavenly calling and we serve a different kingdom.
If the state stayed out of everything that could possibly relate to faith, we wouldn't have a very free country, would we? Where do you make the differentiation? Sorry I'm not too clear in expressing this...but I just really don't think there could be many laws without some kind of moral basis!
15. What is the future of people when they die?
They go either to Heaven or Hell in a state of consciousness, and the bodies are raised on the last day to rejoin their souls, either to eternal life or eternal damnation.
They go to Heaven, Hell, or purgatory (if they're headed for Heaven but need to be cleansed of their sins first), and the bodies are raised on the last day to rejoin their souls, either to eternal life or eternal damnation.
They are unconscious - the saved until they're raised up to everlasting life, the wicked until they're raised up and consumed.
The first answer about sums it up.
16. What is your belief regarding eschatology (the "end times")?
The rapture is imminent, when believers are taken off the Earth, followed by a period of tribulation for unbelievers, after which Christ returns to earth with the believers to reign for 1,000 years.
^ Above view, except the believers reign with Christ from heaven during the 1,000 years instead of earth, and this is the period for judgement of unbelievers.
The 1,000 years are not literal but symbolic of the period between Christ's 1st and 2nd comings (now). There is no separate rapture for believers, and both believers and non-believers will be resurrected at the same time.
I have not studied eschatology extensively, but the other answers definitely do not fit what I have learned.
ETA: Don't get too worried about where I said I hadn't drawn firm conclusions. My current opinion is probably about as strong as most people's (possibly even moreso, in some cases and respects), but I like to have a very firm backup for the things that I say I believe...because it takes a lot of evidence for me to reach absolute conviction.=)
