Fall 2008 Online Certificate Students:
View all sessions below. Then log all your comments, questions, discussion question answers, criticisms, or thoughts below.
NOTE: This is not the place for general discussion and questions. Go to the foyer for general discussion and refer to the FAQ on the right for question. Time spent in the comments section will apply toward your one hour of community time per week. To download audio sessions, visit the course homepage on the TTP site. The next session will be posted each Wed.
_______________________________
What are the essential beliefs that make a Christian a Christian? What are the core beliefs that someone must believe to be saved? Are there truths that are relative? If so, how do we know which ones? In this session the student will struggle with these difficult questions. The goal here is not that everyone comes to complete agreement, but that we begin to dialogue about such issues, understanding that failure to do so has produced legalism where people are judging others for not agreeing with them on each and every detail on non-essential issues. The student should also begin to recognize that there are different levels of certainty about all beliefs.
What is the "big picture" difference between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism? [9:08m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download How do Protestants view Church History? [23:04m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download How do Roman Catholics view Church History? [19:49m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download How do Eastern Orthodox view Church History? [3:39m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Why are there so many Protestant denominations? [16:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Powered by FireStats
October 5th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Here are my answers for the week 7 discussion questions:
1. What confusion or misconceptions have you had in the past concerning division in the Christian Church?
Well, the ‘brick and mortar’ Christian university I went to many years ago had some classes that went over some of the basics of how these things came to be. So I was previously exposed to the basics. I could say I also know the least of the Eastern Orthodox. It was interesting to look at history from each major branch’s point of view. I probably would have presumed Eastern Orthodox would more closely associate themselves with Catholoicism than Protestantism rather than as the lecture pointed out view them both as parts of a separate western branch.
2. Do you agree with the Roman Catholic argument that the Church could not have a canon of the Bible without the authoritative proclamation of the Church? Why or why not?
It depends - if by the ‘Church’, they mean exclusively Roman Catholicism, the no. But if they mean including true believers overall as in the early Councils, then I could see some validity to it as far as God speaking or working through that ‘Church’. I would not agree with any solely human-based authority. So I think the question would have to be more specifically qualified for me to be able to respond to it more decisively.
3. Did this lesson help you understand your own tradition? Explain.
I think I have fairly well understood my tradition. I have understood the distinguishing basis as well as had a sense that actually there is some mixing in different proportions of basis in Scripture and tradition in many people’s and church’s actual practice of their beliefs. However a session like this is good for laying out a look at how traditions diverged and reconverged in different ways. I thought it particularly interesting to realize that really the more recent traditions - liberal, fundamental, etc - have drawn from both Reformed and Arminian, almost or like an organizational restructuring.
4. Why do you think the Protestant Reformers believed that the Gospel was the main essential that determines the true Church? Do you agree? Explain.
I think they were probably looking at it from the view of those who witnessed first hand how the traditional approach could get carried away with playing fast and loose with Scriptural authority because they could count on so many never having read or interpreted Scripture for themselves. I think because of this, they wanted to be sure to emphasize the most essential aspect of the message of God’s word in the Scripture, and therefore what they believed should have been the main emphasis of the Church all along.
5. Do you think the Gospel is preserved in the Protestant Church today? Why or why not?
I believed the Gospel is preserved in the Protestant Church in it’s most pure form (at least among the major branches), although not unaffected by those who seek to distort it in I suppose every branch of Christianity. I believe this because generally in the Protestant Church the Gospel is preached without the human add-ons of other traditions such as Mariology, etc. Although the Protestant approach risks the extreme of crossing into easy-believism, still I think again in general those extremes are the exception and not the rule. I could be wrong on any of these points though as I’m simply not able to know for sure what goes on in every other church congregation in the world.
6. Many are pushing for a “modern reformation.” Do you think that the Church is in need of another major reform? Why or why not?
I’m not sure a whole reformation is called for, but I see where the Protestant church has exhibited some of the same signs of institutionalism as the Catholic Church has. Strongholds of traditions have cropped up such as mood music before the offering, etc. I think what may be called for is recognizing some of these symptoms, seeing what’s behind them, and making sure the tradition loses any undue hold it has. Traditions may still be kept if rendered harmless and put into their proper perspective.
7. Fundamentalism can be used both positively and negatively. Positively, Fundamentalism is the twentieth-century movement that sought to preserve the essentials of Christianity in its fight against liberalism. Negatively, Fundamentalism is thought of as a legalistic sect that, like the Pharisees of Christ’s day, places unnecessary burdens on the backs of people. In what ways have you been exposed to Fundamentalism in its negative sense? What can be done to correct this characterization of the Church?
I have been exposed to the negative side of Fundamentalism in a number of ways. I’ve seen extreme hypocrisy of some proclaiming absolute inerrancy and strict literal interpretation, yet that it shouldn’t mean that they take and cut away their own ‘offending’ eye or hand of course. I’ve seen Scripture used to condemn someone else on one hand yet other Scripture ignored or conveniently forgotten when it would convict the condemner themselves. It appears from the impressions I’ve gotten that Fundamentalists are fundamentally insecure that they may be shown to be wrong about something or that if one part of their belief is shown to be innaccurate, then their whole belief system should fall apart. Again this is just the impression I’ve gotten from their behavior, hypocritical Scripture abuse, and ignorance. I understand what the lecture describes as a positive side to it, but I really haven’t seen that in practice.
8. Read Matt. 10:34–36. Should the Church continue to be Fundamentalist in the positive sense, even if it divides?
As described by the lecture, yes, because that scripture indicates we should expect to experience some division. My only question here would be if the ‘positive sense’ can be maintained, because I’ve only seen Fundamentalism go into sometimes bizarre and ignorant extremes that result in the behavior I described in the question above. Hopefully that’s just my experience, and a ‘positive sense’ of fundamentalism can prove useful to safeguard some beliefs. But I don’t know what beliefs need safeguarding in that manner. Generally I’ve found beliefs are best exemplified and spread by living them out, not debating how they must be true.
9. How was your thinking most challenged by the lesson? Explain.
This was sort of answered in question 3 in seeing the different viewpoints of how Church history has unfolded. It is almost comical imagining a typical Protestant’s or Catholic’s surprise at an Eastern Orthodox view that would lump them both together as just the Western branch, lol. Then again the viewpoint would probably be more of a serious offense to someone in an especially sensitive situation like an Irish Catholic or Protestant. My only remote contact with Eastern Orthodox has been with the Ukrainian Orthodox group here and they themselves take offense if anyone so much as mistakes them for Russian Orthodox. So I guess the splinter and plank work both ways.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Chartastic again
One thing I found interesting in looking at the chart of traditions is that there doesn’t seem to be any further branching out from individual points after about 1900. All of the new branches after that - charismatic, fundies, etc - draw from both the Reformed and Arminian branches. Anyone know if there’s any particular reason for that?
October 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Answers to discussion questions for Session 7:
1) My understanding of the dividing of the Christian church throughout history was right in line with the material Michael and Rhome covered in the classroom. The seminary courses I’ve taken seem to be quite similar to those the two of them have had.
2) This brought about a huge amount of discussion during the Table Talk session. I still hold to my position and disagree with Bruce and Kwesi that the Church was not necessary for the Church to have a canon of the Bible without the authoritative proclamation of the Church. A couple of reasons for that.
A) God, in His sovereignty and wisdom, I believe, knew that Christiandom would go through many periods of darkness, upheaval, confusion, and heresy. He provided in advance for those eventualities and used the Church - His Body - to proclaim authoritatively what the church from its beginning had held and would hold to be the authoritative Word of God - the canon.
B) As Forest mentioned above, God “speaking and working through His church” is part and parcel of what Christ delegated and commissioned all who follow Him to do while we await His return. The canon of Scripture is where we find the foundsation for what Roger Olson describes as “The Great Tradition”. It is here that we return to discover our roots and seek to learn and maintain - as we due in this program - what the ongoing community of believers holds to be orthodox belief and practice.
3) Early in my life, we were part of the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), so my understanding of the Reformation and the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism were well grounded. Later, as I came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and pursued theological studies, my understanding of the broad range of Christian beliefs in all three major branches was expanded, as well as my grasp of the divisions and their causes among Protestants.
4) I believe the reformers had become deeply sensitive to and aware of how far the “Church” had strayed from the essentials of Christian belief and life that they realized the critical need for Christianity to know and return to what defined it. That definition is found solely in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, yes, I would whole heartedly agree with the reformers that “the Gospel was [and is] the main essential that determines the true Church”.
5) For the most part, I do believe that the Gospel is preserved in the Protestant Church today because that is where our identity comes from. Granted, there are many fractured factions that focus on things that are non-essential, even unorthodox, yet the heart of the message of the protestant Church remains fundamentaly the same - one must believe in Jesus Christ,the Son of God, to be saved. There is salvation in no other.
However, the extraneous garbage that has become attached to the modern church - especially Evangelicalism - has so diluted the Gospel message that it is buried under methodologies, marketing, and socio-political activism.
6) Do we need a “modern reformation”? To a great degree, I would have to agree that we do. As I mentioned, the Gospel message is so buried under extraneous garbage that it is all but invisible. The “feel good”, pop-psychology approach of having a purpose-driven whatever has drowned out and almost replaced the call of John the Baptist, and Jesus Christ, and Peter ( et.al.) to “Repent!” The “being relevant” marketing approaches to the mega-church movement and the Church Growh Movement have given us auditoriums instead of sanctuarties, performances instead of worship-of-God experiences. “It’s all about You,” has been - for the most part - replaced with, “It’s all about ME!”
7) My exposure to Fundamentalism has been a mix of positive and negative. I have been around some pretty wacky fundamentalists - mostly “mental”. Many of them have never met a conspiracy they didn’t like, and they are convinced that a reactionary approach is the only truly godly approach. On the other had\nd, some of the kindest and most well-grounded believers I have met have been Fundamentalist in their beliefs. While they may not have much of an understanding of the “outsiode” world and merely shake their heads at the follishness and deception that others live under, they have also been key workers in the outreach ministries that I have been privileged to be a part of over the years. These folks, I believe, are closer to the irenic approach than they realize. therein lies the answer to how we can rescue Fundamentlism of the outlandish and return it to its functionality and vitality.
It really sounded like it bordered on Emergent when I first looked into it. But, as I investigate further and listen and learn more about what it really means, I have pretty much been convereted to thinking that this is the adjustment we need to make in the Church today (it is the adjustment I need to make in my own approah, for sure). This adjustment in outlook and approach will do a great deal to silence the voices that call Christianity - especially in America - hypocritical, harsh, judgmental, unintellectual, too old-fashioned, out-of-date, and irrelevant. It will allow us to be obedient to tha demand Peter makes in 1 Peter 3:15, and to do so with the heart that he admonishes us to have in 1 Peter 3:16.
When we do this, we will have to get to the place where we get either polemic or apologetic. Once we get there, that will bring division in many cases. But, if we have pursued the irenic method adequately, the division will not have to necessarily be combative. Some will not waver from there stance, no matter how “peaceabe” we are. We cannot go the route of the Emergents and refuse to “come to light” on a specific point of doctrine. We must stand on and speak the truth in love - but we must hold to the truth without compromise, even if it seems unloving. We will have to pray and let God sort it out from there.
9) Most challenged? My greatest challenge came during the Table Talk session, not the classroom session. My “opponents” view that God could have easily preserved the canon of Scripture and that He did not require the Church to do so seemed to completely ignore the fact that He did use the Church for that very purpose, hence it would appear that His “could” is over-ridden by His “did”, and I am still unsettled over it. I agree that He “could have” - the fact renmains that He didn’t. And that, to me, says volumes about what He saw in relation to what remains hidden from our view of history and events. I will just have to trust that God will lead us to the truth - whichever view is the more accurate.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
1. Misconceptions I’ve had about the church. I had never seen the Catholic perspective before on the reformation, and I figgure that they looked at us as a bunch of rebels and I thought they were ignorant group-thinkers.
2. As to the Catholic view of the cannon, my first thought is that it is very difficult to have a cannon without agreement (unity). But, my understanding is that when you look through church history and bibliology, there are some books that stand out as being cannon with no real objections. I don’t think a council is necessary to proclaim the obvious.
3. I thought that the Catolics and protestants were in complete agreement until the reformation, and didn’t see any disagreement before then. I’ve learned, however, that there was a natural split from the very beginning.
4. Reformers believe that the gospel is the essential that determines the true church, probably because without knowing whether or not someone was a Believer in the essentials for salvation, nobody knew who could or could not become a member. In the protestant tradition, the gospel makes that boundary for us, while in the catholic tradition, that boundary is set by Rome. I agree with the protestant tradition that the church should be formed around the gospel, because that is the way to be sure that we are staying true to the roots of our faith, in my opinion.
5. In some elements of the protestant church, the gospel is well-preserved. I would consider these orthodox churches, and they do not necessarily represent one denomination or tradition. I would say there are orthodox Foursquare and un-orthodix foursquare; orthodix baptist, and un-orthodox baptist.
6. I am not sure what the modern reformers are pushing for. I do think that in order to attract people of the Gen X/Y culture, there needs to be some more continual adaptation, as there always should be and always has been. But the gospel and doctrinal orthodoxy must be preserved throughout.
7. Fundamentalism bothers me because I believe in order to preserve the gospel, they actually rejected the gospel at its core. I have not been a believer that long, so have not been exposed to too much culturally. But I have had thoughts that it might be wise for me to take a legalistic approach to following Christ. However, my faithful pastor is wise enough to stop me quickly.
8. As a Jewish Believer, I had to face this personally and I found that the gospel did divide me from my parents. In fact, I think the entire message of attonement and biblical repentance is that peace only comes through a sacrifice. I do think we need to be fundamentalist in the positive sense in that we cannot ever try to unite more by sacrificing truth or the gospel. If we can unite on that basis, then great. But if not, better to allow other to go seperate ways, than to displease God or loose the gospel. Afterall, it is the truth that makes us free!
9. I was most challenged to see the legitimacy of other points of view in regards to church history. I had really never seriously considered them before. Now, I see a certain validity to the Catholic point of view, and am even able to value it.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:20 am
1. I figured divisions within the protestant church were caused due to different beliefs, most of which are non-essential issued. But, I never knew the history which divided the church between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Church. This gave me a very good picture of why it happened.
2. It is very important that the church guards the Gospel. But the Gospel should define the church. However, the church should not define the gospel, but keep it pure.
3. Yes. This reinforces in my mind why so many parts of the country are either heavily Catholic or Protestant. Your family has a lot to do with your faith and tradition and has a strong influence on the “type” of church you attend.
4. The first church was formed and shaped by the Gospel, so I agree with the Protestant Reformers. If you get as close to the truth and first hand accounts as possible, then you need to stay there for truth and accuracy.
5. In some ways yes, but in others no. If the church focuses on Christ and salvation through Him alone, then they are preserving the Gospel. When they add all different things to it or don’t even talk about salvation, then they are not preserving the Gospel.
6. It depends on what is meant by “modern reformation”. I believe we need to teach our children truth and keep doctrine pure. They truly need to know what they believe and why they believe it (for themselves) so they can defend their faith and share the good news of what Christ has done for us with others.
7. Growing up in our local church, so members of the church looked down on people/families that would participate in different behaviors, but a lot of these issues I could not hold so strongly to as they did. (Maybe because I was a teenager or maybe because I never saw the issues clearly addressed in the Bible). When we would discuss the issues, we were usually not given clear answers but a standard answer…which was stated a lot like this…We are not of the world and we cannot do the things the world does. Well, that never seemed good enough for me. Even this biblical sound church had too many do’s and don’ts. I am glad to have grown up in that biblical sound church, but now attend a church that is more focused on the essentials where we can disagree on the non-essentials but have charity in all things. I think that is a better balance. (We agree to disagree on some issues).
8. No one wants to see the church divide and it is sad when it does, but we must always preserve the essentials for the sake of our children.
9. I recently read The Apostles Creed for the first time and wondered where the phrase the “holy Catholic Church” came from. During this session it was one of those “a-ha” moments for me and I learned a lot from Session 7.
October 25th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Warren,
One of your comments jumped out at me from your answer to number 5:
“However, the extraneous garbage that has become attached to the modern church - especially Evangelicalism - has so diluted the Gospel message that it is buried under methodologies, marketing, and socio-political activism.”
The “marketing” especially struck me because of a widely used evangelical program. I can see good points to the program, but what strikes me as ‘off’ about it is it’s approach is so much like that of a commercial sales pitch. I don’t know if that necessarily makes it bad, but the sincerity of the approach always seemed suspect to me.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Mitch,
I couldn’t agree more with your answer to number 9. It’s a real eye opener to realize how another ’side’ can quite reasonably (or reasonably from their point of view) come to believe something different. I think it’s helped make me much more careful about presuming someone just hasn’t thought anything through or just thinks all wrong if they don’t believe as I do. Furthermore it helps to make myself rethink more carefully to see if there’s something I didn’t reason as well as I thought.
October 25th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Wendy,
In your answer to number 5, your comment :
“…When they add all different things to it or don’t even talk about salvation, then they are not preserving the Gospel.”
Made me think of how ironic it is when a protestant church falls into what you describe here. I mean it’s one of the very things protestants often accuse catholics of - adding unnecessary things to the gospel and forgeting to keep the simple faith aspect of it. It seems any church might possibly fall into this, and if so we can see how it could happen to the Roman Catholic church after so much time and what it’s been through - not making excuses for anyone, just sayin’…
November 1st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
LESSON 7
1. What confusion or misconceptions have you had in the past concerning division in the Christian Church?
-When I see or hear about a church going through a split, one has to wonder how it reached this point. What I usually see or have heard about is pretty petty. One has to wonder how/why things could not have been worked out.
Now having said this I have been challenged by a good Roman catholic friend about all the thirty thousand plus denominations. It’s hard to give a good answer, but I do wonder if not for all the thousands of denominations could the gospel have reached all the people that it has over the centuries. Would America be the country that it has become due to Puritan Christian influences?
2. Do you agree with the Roman Catholic argument that the Church could not have a canon of the Bible without the authoritative proclamation of the Church? Why or why not?
–Yes I would say that I agree with that statement. The scriptures are Gods word that he has preserved through man and his Church, but ultimately it is God who has preserved this divine record.
3. Did this lesson help you understand your own tradition? Explain.
–Yes, it is always good to get a little Church history to help us understand our roots and how it all relates today.
4. Why do you think the Protestant Reformers believed that the Gospel was the main essential that determines the true Church? Do you agree? Explain.
–I think God’s plan as related through scripture is about salvation, and God showing us how this plan unfolds over time. This I believe is what the reformers saw too. That ultimately and foundationally we are saved by faith by trusting in God (Christ) alone.
5. Do you think the Gospel is preserved in the Protestant Church today? Why or why not?
–Yes I do in most cases but certainly not all. For instance in the liberal churches I would think that the use of the word God has lost its historical meaning. The word seems to be meaningless and I wonder if its purpose might be more for psychological and motivational purposes rather than a definition of a person with specific attributes.
Also, I would be wary of some Protestant Churches wavering a bit on their priorities. Letting some priorities get in the way of preaching the simple Gospel.
6. Many are pushing for a “modern reformation.” Do you think that the Church is in need of another major reform? Why or why not?
I’m not sure what this would look like. I think the Church just being the Church is a goal in itself. They body helping one another, the body going out and helping people in the neighborhoods, more substantial Biblical understanding, and more careful cultural thinking/analysis training.
7. Fundamentalism can be used both positively and negatively. Positively, Fundamentalism is the twentieth-century movement that sought to preserve the essentials of Christianity in its fight against liberalism. Negatively, Fundamentalism is thought of as a legalistic sect that, like the Pharisees of Christ’s day, places unnecessary burdens on the backs of people. In what ways have you been exposed to Fundamentalism in its negative sense? What can be done to correct this characterization of the Church?
–My exposure to fundamentalism is minimal especially here in California. I do recall conversations with my sister who tells me about her daughter in-laws parents’ church. It is fortunately that she and her daughter in-law began going back to Church after her husband’s death. But, unfortunate the church had a policy of having to wear dresses to church, and had a list of prohibitions that they can or can’t do. Her boys all having tattoos, she was told that they are prohibited in the Bible (as worshipping other Gods).
Now I don’t know all the details, but it seems the timing was not the best in talking about these things. And, frankly, it seems this church could have done more to reach out to them especially with help in understand the fundamentals like the Gospel.
8. Read Matt. 10:34–36. Should the Church continue to be Fundamentalist in the positive sense, even if it divides?
–This is a pretty heavy verse in context suggesting that there will be tension in our Christian lives especially as we live and proclaim Christ. So to answer this question, I will have to say yes even if it divides. But I would hope the divisions would be done in a honorable and charitable manner if that is possible.