If i say am christian..

1robin said:

The documentary I saw said that what ruined the English churches was governmental involvment. I got the impression they meant that the government was incoroprating church administration to some extent but have no idea which churches or how much. They said that explained why the US churches being independant were more active. The state ruins whatever it touches and should not be involved with the church.

Click to expand...

The Government or ruler was always involved in a countries religion ever since Rome made the Christianity the Official religion of Rome. This was called the "Established" church.The English established Church is the Church of England.
As we have recently seen the New Arch Bishop of Canterbury was selected Firstly by a committee of Bishops who recommended three names to the Prime minister who recommended two of them to the Queen but naming his preference. The queen makes the final decision. ( She could have selected either) Not that different to the election of the new Coptic Pope. (three names selected by the bishops were then draw by lot by a child)
England In one way or another has done this since it was first a catholic country. In those days the king selected the new Cardinal who was approved by the Pope.

This went on right up to Henry V111 who chose his close friend Cardinal Wolsey.
It was when they fell out over a proposed divorce that the Church of England was formed.

The Church of England, as before when the country was catholic, Is responsible for the cure of all souls (everyone) in England. Everyone has the right to be baptised married or buried by the church, what ever religion they were Born into.

This arrangement is common though out the old world and has nothing to do with the recent falling away of church membership, as nothing has changed in this relationship.

Church Law, in relationship to the state is extremely complex, and even more difficult to change, by either party. The Church through the Bishops in the House of Lords can influence the Government far more than the reverse.

The situation in the USA, regarding dwindling numbers and shortage of new priests is no different to Europe. It is just a little further back down the road. But the trend is the same.

The American "Business" model of religion, typified by the "Super Churches" and also perhaps by Ron Hubbard's Scientology Is almost a non starter in Europe because Our charity laws make it unprofitable and in some cases illegal.

Terrywoodenpic said:

Not that different to the election of the new Coptic Pope. (three names selected by the bishops were then draw by lot by a child)

Click to expand...

Oh, I like that. We should do that for general elections here in the States. Let them all fight it out in the primaries and then have a child reach into a hat to draw blue or red. (Those symbolize our two parties, in case you're not familiar.)

I think it would probably lead to a more workable government.

1robin said:

That is correct, but the doc I saw I believe used the word "incorporate" as referring to some recent change. I do not understand what they meant and only took away some vague idea that the government had done something new recently that the people disliked concerning the Church.

Click to expand...

The Government has made no changes for a very long time. It is very difficult for it to do so, as it require the agreement of the Church.
If they used the word "incorporate" they were wrong The correct word is "Established"

Politics and religion do not mix well. It is a recipe for futility.

Click to expand...

we would tend to disagree, It is the churches task to lead on social and moral issues. Those changes take the involvement of the church in politics.

the Churches in revelations God himself was very strict and specific about it. If you That can only water down the message but I do not think I could deny people that right either. It is a strange dichotomy that religious leaders face. If they define doctrine too universally and vaguely they gain many followers but the religion it's self becomes marginal and ambiguous. If they adhere strictly to Biblical doctrine they get a much smaller congregation but a much more effective and meaningful message that truly does not resemble the world. It is a tough issue. I think most of the time the vague is selected because it makes a larger tithing base and stops any one from claiming to be discriminated against. However if you review the letters to allowed anyone to claim for themselves any military rank they chose then instantly rank has no meaning. It went from meaning a level of discipline and training that could be counted on to meaning nothing. The same is true and even more meaningfull of Christians and their message.

Click to expand...

The Church of england has changed over time,though it has a single official Dogma.
Each time it move into a new position the old is incorporated. In that way the Anglican faith has sections who follow a puritanical bent, some evangelical, some virtually catholic, and the majority who are middle of the road mainline protestants. all under the umbrella of the church of England. Wesley the founder of the "Methodist Church" remained an Anglican minister. It is rare now, but some even Baptise by total immersion like Baptists.
All Anglican Ministers are trained and ordained in the episcopal tradition by a Bishop. In a straight line of the apostolic succession.

If there is a recent change in European church attendance then something has changed. It was not always this way. I think they were comparing what was different between the US completely independent Churches and the government "incorporated" ones of Europe. Incorporate just does not sit well as the right word with me but I think it was something like that.
I would not have thought that the case these days. I know it used to be very much that way. I do no think the church and state have much of an overlapping magisterium unless one is doing something it should not. I would think anything as marginalized as the modern European church would not have much political influence at all.

Click to expand...

The Church of England differs from the Rest of Europe in that some bishops sit in the House of Lords ( at one time they all did) This is very like your Senate. As lords Spiritual they vote like any other member. Some Like the new Arch Bishop sit on Government committees ( he sits on the one looking into Banking.) He was once a senior industrialist. On the other hand a politician can only be a member of the Church Synod as a member of the church.

The priests issue would only apply to Catholic churches. The protestant and charismatic flavors of American churches are doing pretty good and any decline is related to a general secularism in society at large.
I do not know how you worked Scientology and Christianity in together. I do not agree with the mega church prosperity gospel stuff either. I am more of an old fashioned small country Baptist church person. It does not get much more genuine and pure than that. Almost nothing gets better, more efficient, or as pure as it gets larger.

Click to expand...

American Churches loose members and go insolvent and close as individual churches, and for various reasons. This is the nature of individual churches.
You will find they include all varieties and denominations. Charismatic churches tend to dry up when their leader moves on, to fresh more profitable pastures.
In this respect they are no different to any other business.


Small country churches tend to be far more Genuine in their faith.

1robin said:

That can only water down the message but I do not think I could deny people that right either. It is a strange dichotomy that religious leaders face. If they define doctrine too universally and vaguely they gain many followers but the religion it's self becomes marginal and ambiguous.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with you that ambiguity -- although the very soul of spirituality -- is not something which humankind is ready to embrace. But our species is still young, hardly into our juvenile stage, religiously speaking.

Let's not abandon hope. In 200 years, only the ambiguous Christian will be considered a 'real' Christian.

AmbiguousGuy said:

Yes, I agree with you that ambiguity -- although the very soul of spirituality -- is not something which humankind is ready to embrace. But our species is still young, hardly into our juvenile stage, religiously speaking.

Let's not abandon hope. In 200 years, only the ambiguous Christian will be considered a 'real' Christian.

Click to expand...

It will not matter what we consider a "true" Christian in the end. Neither I nor you will not be on the jury. God will be the Judge, Satan the prosecuting attorney, and Christ the defence. When we go on trial Satan will rightfully accuse us of sins against God. Our only defence will be if Christ speaks up and says our name is in his book of life because we were born again and there fore we are with him. Then God declares us not guilty by reason of substitutionary atonement. Or Christ will say he never knew us and to depart in chains. What doctrines men have created or destroyed will have no place there. Or so the Bible says anyway. I paraphrased of course.

Terrywoodenpic said:

The Government has made no changes for a very long time. It is very difficult for it to do so, as it require the agreement of the Church.

Click to expand...

Terrywoodenpic said:

If they used the word "incorporate" they were wrong The correct word is "Established"

Click to expand...

I don't think it was either. It was a word that meant to assume more administration of. Anyway I appreciate your first hand info on all of this but I am getting a little burned out and Church politics is certainly not my field nor too much of an interest for me so I will wind up my replies.

we would tend to disagree, It is the churches task to lead on social and moral issues. Those changes take the involvement of the church in politics.

Click to expand...

In an ideal perfect nirvana " so to speak" that would be the best case. When "the church" has a history so full of crusades, inquisitions, wars, and witch burnings it is very hard to trust them with unchecked administration. I believe Christ's church or "kingdom" is as he said not an earthly institution primarily. I do not think God intended for the church to straighten out the world but to rescue men from it's curse. However if the Church was pure it would be the best form of government.

The Church of England has changed over time, though it has a single official Dogma.
Each time it move into a new position the old is incorporated. In that way the Anglican faith has sections who follow a puritanical bent, some evangelical, some virtually catholic, and the majority who are middle of the road mainline protestants. all under the umbrella of the church of England. Wesley the founder of the "Methodist Church" remained an Anglican minister. It is rare now, but some even Baptize by total immersion like Baptists.

Click to expand...

I agree with submersion but do not consider any form of baptism invalid. It is symbolic and never saved anyone alone. I was raised in two Methodist church's and they were polar opposites. One was huge and very formal and completely devoid of spirituality. The other was small and as genuinely spiritual as the day is long. I actually resent any supremacy of the ceremonial or formal over the spiritual. Many old school Catholic churches have to submit the mass for approval before hand. That basically says God has no role in it and that man will determine what God should say. My favorite preacher would get so affected by the spirit he would have to take breaks. He would tell people specific things about them given by the spirit. You could actually feel when he entered a room. He was the humblest man I ever knew.

All Anglican Ministers are trained and ordained in the episcopal tradition by a Bishop. In a straight line of the apostolic succession.

Click to expand...

That would only be meaningful if God backed up what they did. I do not like formality or rigorous tradition.

The Church of England differs from the Rest of Europe in that some bishops sit in the House of Lords ( at one time they all did) This is very like your Senate. As lords Spiritual they vote like any other member. Some Like the new Arch Bishop sit on Government committees ( he sits on the one looking into Banking.) He was once a senior industrialist. On the other hand a politician can only be a member of the Church Synod as a member of the church.

Click to expand...

That is quite remarkable.

American Churches loose members and go insolvent and close as individual churches, and for various reasons. This is the nature of individual churches.
You will find they include all varieties and denominations. Charismatic churches tend to dry up when their leader moves on, to fresh more profitable pastures.
In this respect they are no different to any other business.

Click to expand...

Europe was for hundreds of years very Church oriented but something has happened relatively recently to change that. I will leave what it was up to you as I have little access to it.

Small country churches tend to be far more Genuine in their faith.

Click to expand...

Very true. However they can go off the reservation as well easier than large institutions. I live in the Bible belt and only about 20 miles from the most famous snake handling churches in the world in Scottsburough Al.
I was very interested in your take on my ambiguity claims concerning very liberal takes on what a "Christian is" but that got lost somewhere. As I said I will wind down on this issue because I am not competent on European modern church history.

1robin said:

It will not matter what we consider a "true" Christian in the end. Neither I nor you will not be on the jury. God will be the Judge, Satan the prosecuting attorney, and Christ the defence. When we go on trial Satan will rightfully accuse us of sins against God. Our only defence will be if Christ speaks up and says our name is in his book of life because we were born again and there fore we are with him.

Click to expand...

That's a fine opinion. For myself, I think a guy is a Christian if he convinces me that he really considers himself a Christian.

But then I don't believe in Yahweh, nor Satan, nor Christ. I think "Christian" is just a label, like "atheist" or "agnostic" or "silly-acting-guy".

They don't mean anything at all outside of individual human opinion.

In my individual human opinion, I mean.

To the OP, No you were not validly baptised. That is the simple deciding factor

AmbiguousGuy said:

That's a fine opinion. For myself, I think a guy is a Christian if he convinces me that he really considers himself a Christian.

Click to expand...

That is like saying it does not matter what the army says if you claim to be a general and convince me then you are. It makes general and "Christian" mean nothing.

But then I don't believe in Yahweh, nor Satan, nor Christ. I think "Christian" is just a label, like "atheist" or "agnostic" or "silly-acting-guy".

Click to expand...

That explains why watering down the term is unimportant to you.

They don't mean anything at all outside of individual human opinion.

Click to expand...

Oh no, I can see where this is going. Let's say you were made to take a ship to investigate the core of the sun. The scientists said that the ship is made out of unobtainium and that it could survive the heat and protect you. I do not think you would say that that does not matter and unobtainium only can do what you think it can. No it will objectively survive or objectively fail and burn you alive. "Christian" actually has similar parallels or potentially does.

In my individual human opinion, I mean.

Click to expand...

I think pandora's box is opening, you have begun to philosophize.

ForeverFaithful said:

To the OP, No you were not validly baptised. That is the simple deciding factor

Click to expand...

What do you mean? Are you talking about the Holy ghost or some water?

ForeverFaithful said:

To the OP, No you were not validly baptised. That is the simple deciding factor

Click to expand...

It is nice to see a post by you again, it seems like it has been awhile.

I didn't realize the bible said that baptism was required for salvation or for one to be a Christian. I thought the deciding factor was faith and new life in Christ.

InChrist said:

It is nice to see a post by you again, it seems like it has been awhile.

I didn't realize the bible said that baptism was required for salvation or for one to be a Christian. I thought the deciding factor was faith and new life in Christ.

Click to expand...

That very much depends on who you talk to, or what they and you believe.

Terrywoodenpic said:

That very much depends on who you talk to, or what they and you believe.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. I understand that since I was baptized and raised in the Catholic Church. But the answer that I think is important is not what one believes, but what the scriptures actually say.

1robin said:

That is like saying it does not matter what the army says if you claim to be a general and convince me then you are. It makes general and "Christian" mean nothing.

Click to expand...

Nah. Entirely different deal. Real generals have certificates. If they don't have the certificate, they're not generals.

Now if you claim you're a Roman Catholic, I might ask to see your baptismal papers, signed and stamped by the appropriate Church authority, and agree that you probably are a Catholic if your papers seem authentic to me. (Do Catholics still get such docs? I'm just guessing here.)

Anyway, there is no certification for 'Christian' or 'atheist' or 'fatguy.'

InChrist said:

Yes, you're right. I understand that since I was baptized and raised in the Catholic Church. But the answer that I think is important is not what one believes, but what the scriptures actually say.

Click to expand...

It not quite as simple as that
Your church like mine accept any one who has been baptised using the correct trinitarian form and belief, so accept each others baptism.

They would accept others as christian under the general heading of the larger church universal, but would require them to be Baptised using the correct form.

Note that I did not say baptise again, as you can not be baptise twice. They do not consider a non trinitarian ceremony to be valid as a baptism.

The Scriptures make no distinction between any form of Baptism. Trinitarian or otherwise. (Trinitarian beliefs had not been formulated)

AmbiguousGuy said:

Nah. Entirely different deal. Real generals have certificates. If they don't have the certificate, they're not generals.

Now if you claim you're a Roman Catholic, I might ask to see your baptismal papers, signed and stamped by the appropriate Church authority, and agree that you probably are a Catholic if your papers seem authentic to me. (Do Catholics still get such docs? I'm just guessing here.)

Anyway, there is no certification for 'Christian' or 'atheist' or 'fatguy.'

Click to expand...

I do not know any Anglican that has their Baptismal documents. The only way I knew I had been baptised was that I knew my God Father. I do not even know where I was baptised. ( it was most likely some where in sussex or surry or even County Down as we had homes and family in all those places)

AmbiguousGuy said:

Nah. Entirely different deal. Real generals have certificates. If they don't have the certificate, they're not generals.

Click to expand...

Of course it is a different deal but it is exactly the same principle. Generals do not carry certificates around with them (I was a petty officer in the Navy and carried no certificate) but that was not the point. However if you want to stick with certificates then a Christians certificate is the fact his name is written in Christ’s book of life the moment he is born again. The actual point was if you define a term any broader or more liberal than what the source does it lessens the meaning of the term. That is not a debatable claim. It has happened in Christianity politics and a thousand other things that is easy to see. I think you are debating apparent versus real status as is your want.

Now if you claim you're a Roman Catholic, I might ask to see your baptismal papers, signed and stamped by the appropriate Church authority, and agree that you probably are a Catholic if your papers seem authentic to me. (Do Catholics still get such docs? I'm just guessing here.)

Click to expand...

I have no idea. I am a protestant. I am no fan of Catholic history but do admire some of their accomplishments. I will say this none of the paperwork a man gave you will help on judgment day and that is the issue we are discussing.

Anyway, there is no certification for 'Christian' or 'atheist' or 'fat guy.'

Click to expand...

Exactly. The only point I am making is that if the most liberal (manmade) definition for "Christian" is used to include anyone who claims to be or wears a cross on a chain then the term losses impact and meaning. This is more of a hypothetical argument. I am not discussing application specifically. The fact is the overuse of Christians has rendered the term far less meaningful than it was during the Roman persecutions for example.

I will leave you with one example. During the Persian and Peloponnesian wars Sparta had the finest trained troops in human history. The entire state was devoted to war. There was no economy, little art, and no weakness. They would kill all weak or sick babies and draft the children at 7 and put them into the most cruel training program in history until they were 30. The Spartans were so feared and respected that as soon as anyone heard they were coming or saw their red capes they would surrender. By law a Spartan could never surrender nor retreat. If you ever fought them it would not end until one of the armies was all dead. So at that time they hardly ever had to fight because of their reputation alone. After many years went by and the society was no longer what it was the men were not trained to anything like the standard they were previously. They still wore the red capes and looked the same but they were paper tigers and they started being defeated and THE CALL OF SPARTANS!!!! meant nothing eventually.

Most of the OT testament shows that Israel was supposed to be a shining Moral example to the world. God laid extra burdens on them and required greater morality from them. Being human this was only partially successfull and they were punished severly for failure by God at times. The entire point was that they reflected God and would produce Christ and he wanted them to be unique so their message and messiah would have a greater impact on the world. If Israel was as heathenistic or immoral as the rest of the tribes their impact would have been lessened. As it is they are the subject of the greatest book in human history because they were unique. If this doesn't make the point I give it up as impossible.

InChrist said:

It is nice to see a post by you again, it seems like it has been awhile.

I didn't realize the bible said that baptism was required for salvation or for one to be a Christian. I thought the deciding factor was faith and new life in Christ.

Click to expand...

Same here. I watched a Christian progran this morning that said baptism was a show - AFTER - acceptance of Iesous. And that it is not actually required.

Ingledsva said:

Same here. I watched a Christian progran this morning that said baptism was a show - AFTER - acceptance of Iesous. And that it is not actually required.

Click to expand...

That is exactly true. Jesus gave his life to save us. He does not need the help of a cup or pool of water. Spiritual rebirth (born again) when we accept Christ is what actually and noticably washes away sin. Water has never forgiven a single sin. Water baptism is a outward sign of an internal event. It also reveals to the congregation that one has been saved. It is ceremonial. Even John the Baptist said his water baptism is not what saves that it is Christ who was coming that would truly baptise with the Holy Spirit and that is what his water baptism pointed to. It is also what OT animal sacrifice pointed to. The blood of goats and rams only symbolically pushed forward the sins of Israel year by year until Christ came and those sins were actually done away with permenantly.