Christianity

[polka_dot]

Okay, as you might know, I've only been a Christian for a year and a half.  I spent the first year completely absorbing everything I could about the basic beliefs about Christianity -- the trinity, grace, God's love, etc.  I learned as much as I could.  I'm not a person to accept things just by being told that it's true - I want to learn all I can about something before I believe it.  (needless to say, God's been trying to back me down from this position...but I still believe in an educated faith, not a blind faith)

However, one thing I did was assume that the church I went to believed the closest thing to real Christianity as was possible.  But then I met my boyfriend, who is Catholic.  And I met people on the internet who had way different beliefs than I do.  And I realized that maybe, just maybe, my church wasn't as perfect as I thought - that maybe there is no such thing as "real" Christianity.  I still love my church, and I doubt that I will ever leave it unless I move away...but I'm spending this summer learning as much about other denominations and Christian history as possible.

So...my question is: what do you believe?  Why do you believe it?  What is your interpretation of the Christian ideas of baptism, communion, works, free will (by the way, Josh, that essay was super interesting, though I don't know if I agree with you...), church structure, pacifism, the authority of scripture, etc?  I just want to learn - to sit back and absorb your thoughts.  I have some specific questions for you guys, but first I want to hear what you have to say!

[Josh]

Oh, gosh. So much to say! VERY briefly...:

Baptism: One of two sacraments that I believe in. Baptism in itself is not powerful; rather, it's a symbol of rebirth in Christ. My church practices infant baptism, which I think it biblical, but I don't really take a stance on dunking vs. sprinkling... both seem fine to me.

Communion: Sacrament #2. Again, a symbol. Taking communion is symbolically eating from God's table, which we are a part of thanks to His adopting us. I do NOT share the Catholic/Lutheran belief that the bread and wine is the physical body and blood of Christ, though Stanton, I think, does, as well as some other participants here, probably.

Works: Good works are a result of faith in Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit allows us to do them. They come AFTER faith, and therefore cannot gain one entrance into heaven.

Free will: We are constantly presented with choices, but our sinful nature disallows us to choose anything other than destruction and sin... UNLESS God intervenes on our behalf.

Pacifism: God tells His people throughout the Old testament that they need to fight, and we are also told that there is "a time for war." So I don't think total pacifism is biblical.

Scriputre: "All Scripture is God-breathed." And that means ALL Scripture, just like it said. It was written before the News Testament existed, of course, but I'm guessing God had enough foresight to apply it to the entire Bible, not just the OT. Every word of Scripture is the Word of God, written down by human beings, and all of it is useful to us in some way, even if not all of it still applies to us in the way it applied originally (Levitical laws, unclean food, etc.).

There's a start...

[Vlad!]

How long do you have?

I believe that God allows us a certain amount of personal freedom in how we live the Christian life. Not to say that we can just choose a path and walk it without any consequences, but that people aren't going to get to heaven only to find that they REALLY should have been baptized through immersion, or that communion is supposed to be taken ONLY with wine, not with this sissy grape juice stuff. After all, we're supposed to live like Christ, and we never saw Christ getting all anal about how people came to Him, just so long as they were seeking Him and had faith.

I believe that the Bible is a collection of writings by several different men, all written for a different purpose yet all bound together by a common theme and pointing to a common source. I don't believe that every word in the Bible must be taken literally, or even that every word is exactly what God thinks, especially when it is clear that the text is the writer's own opinion or interpretation. However, the Bible was written by those who knew God and experienced special revelation regarding what He wanted to convey, so any and all scripture, taken in context, is valid for establishing doctrine. Since God worked through men to create the Bible, the Spirit helps us interpret scripture. There is only one valid interpretation, but anyone can find it through the aid of the Spirit (unlike what many Catholics believe, that only priests can interpret scripture).

I believe that man is born sinful, and that even if I somehow managed to live a perfect life I wouldn't get to heaven on my own. The only way to acheive righteousness is through Christ.

I believe that Salvation is a gift open to all men. No person is born incapable of receiving salvation. The only way to salvation is through Christ, who was who He said He was. But nobody will be taken to heaven against their will.

I believe that the church is designed to be an organized fellowship of believers who together engage in corporate worship, inspired teaching, mutual upbuilding, and pooling of resources to most effectively reach out into the secular world. I do not believe that churches were established to advertise a certain doctrine or enforce uniformity in the body of Christ. The leadership of the Church provides gentle guidance, service, and instruction to the body in imitation of Christ. The leadership of the church should be respectable both spiritually and secularly, but can be organized and set up in whatever manner is most effective. God does not refuse to enter into a church that goes against the traditional church setup but still seeks Him.

God realizes that people must be led, and has ordained government to provide for the people. Choosing to go to war should be done solemnly and for good and just reasons, but is not a violation of the purpose of government.

Above all, God is a God of logic and reason. His instructions have actual reasons behind them. Becoming a Christian is not abandoning reason or knowledge. The Christian faith is neither a formula nor an unchanging, rigid doctrine, but rather is living, active, and relevant to the world today. Expecting to find God by following a formula without knowing the reason is foolishness. God wants us to choose to follow Him intellectually, emotionally, and with our very being.

I hope I covered all the bases, and I especially hope this thread doesn't turn into a bitter argument. Wouldn't THAT be ironic?

[polka_dot]

[Josh]

all I know is that Christ advocated peace.

....but didn't He also say that He was coming to bring the sword?

Do you think we should look to lives of the early Christians for advice on how to live?

Yes, but their lives should be held up against Scripture, which is the FINAL authority.

 

[standman87]

Have I just entered the most general topic or what - and yet it is a good question. You should have titled the topic denominational beliefs, but who cares about that.

Being a young Christian myself, but being in a household of a Lutheran pastor, leaves me still 'hanging' on to some of my parents beliefs while I figure my own.

I have not completely determined my definitive views on Baptism and Holy Communion. I don't think the two sacraments are essential to salvation, yet Jesus himself commanded His disciples to follow them. With Jesus' own words upon these plans, the Lutherans believed they should be taken seriously. Baptism is done at birth or when your familly joins the Christian faith (it doesnt matter in what Christian denomination you get baptized in) as done throughout New Testament scripture. Holy Communion is not done with grape juice and white fluffy bread filled with yeast - no offense but thats almost disrespectful to the whole idea, you might as well not do it. Holy Communion is not an appetizer after a long sermon, it is a time to realize that right now your sins are being paid for by the death of Jesus Christ - in a sense, you are killing Jesus. The power of these sacraments cannot be determined by human reason, but if you follow any command from your Father in Heaven, remember He must be working within you.

The Bible is the truth. And though any devil of sorts can twist it into alternative means, the Spirit of the Lord can show any true believer His will through it.

Good works has nothing to do with salvation like many deceptive preachers will try to make you believe. Good works (everything good is of the Father so you could say His works) give us a purpose to fulfill with our earthly lives. And for doing His works (as Jesus says in the Bible), you shall be rewarded beyond human comprehension.

Let me quote my good friend, Josh: "Free will: We are constantly presented with choices, but our sinful nature disallows us to choose anything other than destruction and sin... UNLESS" we let "God intervene on our behalf." - Notice my bold words. Those two words seperate freewill from predestination. Those two words have sparked monumental, page-upon-page debates upon the old phorum before my time.

Pacifism - dont get me started -lol Some of you might know my view already from the infamous war topic that I started, also on the old phorum. When on this sinful world, did God promise us peace? The Christian faith is a continual struggle which does not always need force, but sometimes when a whole nation rises up with the one plan of killing you and your nation - someone has to leave the planet and God doesn't say it has to be you.

Is that a good start?
 

[polka_dot]

I believe that the Bible is a collection of writings by several different men, all written for a different purpose yet all bound together by a common theme and pointing to a common source. I don't believe that every word in the Bible must be taken literally, or even that every word is exactly what God thinks, especially when it is clear that the text is the writer's own opinion or interpretation. However, the Bible was written by those who knew God and experienced special revelation regarding what He wanted to convey, so any and all scripture, taken in context, is valid for establishing doctrine. Since God worked through men to create the Bible, the Spirit helps us interpret scripture.

Good explaination.  But is scripture the only resource that is valid for establishing doctrine?  It's not stated in the Bible anywhere, only that "scripture is useful for teaching".  This is a big thing for me, because my church is completely Bible-based.  If it's not in the Bible, we don't want to believe it.  Plus, the traditional Mennonite church - which is where our beliefs developed - believes in taking the Bible literally.  That means women wear head coverings and don't speak in church, extreme pacifism, and simple dress.  The MB church has backed off this position - we're very close to modern non-denominational churches.  (well, minus the pacifism thing).

There is only one valid interpretation, but anyone can find it through the aid of the Spirit (unlike what many Catholics believe, that only priests can interpret scripture).

Say what?  I don't know any Catholics that believe that.  I think they believe that priests are better at interpreting scripture, the same way I believe that my pastor has a better grasp on concepts than I do.  My boyfriend's dad has a master's degree in theology - are you telling me he's never tried to interpret scripture?

I believe that man is born sinful, and that even if I somehow managed to live a perfect life I wouldn't get to heaven on my own. The only way to acheive righteousness is through Christ.

Yes.  I believe that God is willing to overlook sinfulness until the age of accountability - children go to Heaven regardless of belief - but adults need Jesus.  Believing that works get you anywhere is downplaying Christ's death on the cross.  I would love to believe that my parents would go to Heaven because they've lived good lives, but they don't know Christ, so I have to face the fact they probably won't if they don't find Jesus before they die.  Some denominations that believe you can go to Heaven if you are Muslim or Buddhist confound me.  What was the point of Christ dying, then?  What is the point of evangelism?

I believe that Salvation is a gift open to all men. No person is born incapable of receiving salvation. The only way to salvation is through Christ, who was who He said He was. But nobody will be taken to heaven against their will.

I agree with you here, too.  I find it hard to stomach the thought that God would create a human knowing he would go to hell.  But I might think about this some more later.

I believe that the church is designed to be an organized fellowship of believers who together engage in corporate worship, inspired teaching, mutual upbuilding, and pooling of resources to most effectively reach out into the secular world. I do not believe that churches were established to advertise a certain doctrine or enforce uniformity in the body of Christ.

I think this is the one big problem with the Catholic church - they think everyone should conform.  I don't believe that people are capable of doing that with a true heart.  I feel that denominations are necessary - people think differently.  There are, of course, core Christian doctrines that cannot be changed - but things like communion are open for discussion.

The leadership of the Church provides gentle guidance, service, and instruction to the body in imitation of Christ.  The leadership of the church should be respectable both spiritually and secularly, but can be organized and set up in whatever manner is most effective.

This is what I love about my church - the leaders don't force you to conform, they provide "gentle guidance", as you say.  There's no fire-and-brimstone teaching here.  My pastors don't even teach about things like free will, though they might give their opinion on it during the sermon.   Do you believe that is better to have many independent (or non-denominational) churches, or a few larger denominations?  I tend to go with the latter - my Church donates to the Mennonite Central Committee, which has enough clout to really send a lot of aid to third world countries.  A single church just doesn't have the resources to make such a big impact.

God realizes that people must be led, and has ordained government to provide for the people. Choosing to go to war should be done solemnly and for good and just reasons, but is not a violation of the purpose of government.

Do you believe that Christians should seek to be part of the government?  I don't see why not - but see my answer to Josh about Christians & war...what defines a "good reason" to go to war?  How much is a human life worth?  It's obviously worth a lot to Christ - he died for it!

I seem to agree with you a lot, Vlad!  Thanks for the input.

[Vlad!]

But is scripture the only resource that is valid for establishing doctrine? It's not stated in the Bible anywhere, only that "scripture is useful for teaching". This is a big thing for me, because my church is completely Bible-based. If it's not in the Bible, we don't want to believe it. Plus, the traditional Mennonite church - which is where our beliefs developed - believes in taking the Bible literally. That means women wear head coverings and don't speak in church, extreme pacifism, and simple dress.

The scripture is not the only resource for establishing doctrine--direct revelation, other Christian writings, and even logic can be used. But if the doctrine is incompatible with the scriptures, it 'fails the test' and is not truth. The scriptures are more like a compass than a road map--you can make your own path, but you have to be going in the right direction.

Say what? I don't know any Catholics that believe that. I think they believe that priests are better at interpreting scripture, the same way I believe that my pastor has a better grasp on concepts than I do. My boyfriend's dad has a master's degree in theology - are you telling me he's never tried to interpret scripture?

I have some Catholic friends as well, so I am fairly familiar with their beliefs. I can't point to an official Catholic doctrine that says this (not that there isn't one, but that I don't know exactly where it is right now), but I think they do believe that the average lay person should not attempt to interpret scripture. My sincere apologies if I am wrong on this.

While I'm on the topic of the Catholic church, I don't agree that priests shouldn't marry. That's something that flat-out annoys me about the Catholic church.

Do you believe that is better to have many independent (or non-denominational) churches, or a few larger denominations?

I think it's better to have many churches, non-denominational or not, that are willing to cross the lines of denomination and work together to reach into the community in a positive way. I don't care what your view on predestination is; you're still my Christian brother or sister and I'd be honored to work beside you to help feed the poor or visit the lonely. I think mega-churches don't allow people to unite as closely, but on the other hand I go to a church of maybe 2000 or so and they have some good programs to allow smaller groups of people to fellowship and worship more intimately.

Do you believe that Christians should seek to be part of the government?

I don't think Christians should NOT seek to be a part of the government, but Christians should follow God and their dreams. If a Christian wanted to work in the governement I would be glad, but I would be just as glad if that Christian instead had a passion for helping others and went into nursing, or had a passion for science and worked in a research lab.

all I know is that Christ advocated peace

I believe Christ was a pragmatist--He knew that real life and real situations sometimes required actions suited to fit the circumstances. Even though 'His time had not yet come,' He served His friends by turning water into wine. Nations are not people, and I believe that God has given nations broad powers to fulfill their duties to their people. However, a nation should adopt the attitude of Moses: if You will not go with us, we will not go forth. I believe that if everybody followed God's plan there would be no war, so war is brought about by those who are following their own selfish desires rather than God's desires. If those selfish desires begin to hurt innocent people, how can a Christian say in good conscience that their nation should not help those people? But war is a terrible thing, and I respect pacifism and despise its opposote: the desire to go to war to solve every problem.  

[bloop]

baptism - I'm not sure what to say.  I think baptism is important, but I don't understand the contention with immersion vs. sprinkling.  Even the baby baptism thing seems a minor issue to me because denominations that do that just view it slightly differently.

communion - whenever we do it, we do it in remembrance of Christ's sacrifice.  There's nothing required here in terms of how often.

works - actually, more important than most evangelicals make it out to be.  This isn't essential to salvation, but it is to telling people about Christ.  It bothers me when people go to foreign countries and start by trying to mock their beliefs away.  It is FAR better to, umm, feed them physically and then gain the right and interest in them to feed spiritually.

free will - my line of thinking falls under Arminianism in terms of free will vs. predestination.  I'm pretty hardline on the free will side because of the loving God thing.  It's a common, simplistic problem with Calvinism, but one which I have regardless.

church structure - umm...like the leadership structure?  I'm not sure what you're asking here.

pacifism - cool if you believe it, but I'm a just war guy.  It seems that God isn't such a unified God if he's telling the Hebrews to go sack this town and that town and then becomes a hippie in the new testament.  Peace and love, man.

the authority of scripture - I believe all scripture is God-breathed, but I'm not sure what scripture is.  Can I really trust people from the middle ages to put together the perfect canon.  Somehow, I doubt it.

[Josh]

the authority of scripture - I believe all scripture is God-breathed, but I'm not sure what scripture is. Can I really trust people from the middle ages to put together the perfect canon. Somehow, I doubt it.

I've had similar questions, and, frankly, I think this is one of those areas when all you can really do is have faith, even if it might not make sense. So I try my best to trust that God has had His hands on the assembly and translation of Scripture over the years, even when I wonder how certain passages ever made it into the canon or I struggle with what appears to be a bad translation, etc.

[polka_dot]

Okay, someone really needs to explain infant baptism to me before I go any further.  I don't get it, and I've never had a conversation with non-Catholics about it before.  =)  

[leinad]

the authority of scripture - I believe all scripture is God-breathed, but I'm not sure what scripture is. Can I really trust people from the middle ages to put together the perfect canon. Somehow, I doubt it.

I've had similar questions, and, frankly, I think this is one of those areas when all you can really do is have faith, even if it might not make sense. So I try my best to trust that God has had His hands on the assembly and translation of Scripture over the years, even when I wonder how certain passages ever made it into the canon or I struggle with what appears to be a bad translation, etc.

I share bloop's uncertainty about which books really belong in the Bible.  My problem with simply trusting that God has ensured that we have the correct canon, is that that rationale could just as easily be used by Catholics to justify their 73-book version of the Bible (which includes 7 books from what Protestants call the Apocrypha.)

[PriestofDasani]

Okay, someone really needs to explain infant baptism to me before I go any further.  I don't get it, and I've never had a conversation with non-Catholics about it before.  =)

Baptism is a symbol and a public profession of faith. Infants do not have the capacity to understand the word of God and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ which makes infant baptism pointless at best.

[Josh]

No, no- infants in the Old Testament were circumcised and dedicated to God within days of being born, and God told new believers in the New Testament to be baptised along with their whole families, which is bound to include infants in many cases.

[DvChWi]

No, no- infants in the Old Testament were circumcised and dedicated to God within days of being born, and God told new believers in the New Testament to be baptised along with their whole families, which is bound to include infants in many cases.

Whoa there.  Scripture references, please?  Where does God say this?

[Josh]

There are at least two places where God says this, and I don't know either reference off the top of my head, but one of them is when Paul and Silas convert the jailkeeper (after the earthquake) and Paul tells the man that he is now a believer. He then commands him to go home and baptise his entire family.

I'll hunt down the verses and give them to you later (that last one is in Acts somewhere).

[Vlad!]

There are indications that a Christian family is all baptized when the head of the family is baptized. I question whether this practice is necessarily consistent throughout the Bible (for example, Paul discusses situations in which one spouse is a believer and the other is not). Since baptism is an external symbol of commitment, the parents by baptizing their child are announcing publicly their commitment to raising that child in the Lord. Of course, when the child is old enough to make the decision for himself, I see nothing wrong with him asking to be baptized again to show his own conscious commitment to Christ.

Then again, if a parent believed differently I wouldn't say that's wrong, either. I would say that it's wrong to claim that an unbaptized person will go to hell regardless of his spiritual state, but I'm not sure the Catholics even believe that baptism is 100% necessary for salvation...

[Josh]

Since baptism is an external symbol of commitment, the parents by baptizing their child are announcing publicly their commitment to raising that child in the Lord.

Yeah, that's right. I know that in my own church, when a baby is baptized, the minister asks all the members of the church to pledge to help the parents bring up the children in a godly way. And I think that's a good practice to be in.

[polka_dot]

[Vlad!]

As with all symbols, baptism has the significance that you impart to it. Salvation is available without baptism, just as baptism doesn't imply salvation (if an unsaved person is baptised, they are not necessarily saved at that moment). Thus, infant baptism is symbolic of the parents agreeing that the child will be raised a Christian. The child does not later "need" to be re-baptized, although when he or she commits to Christ it would be an external sign of faith.

The baptism of the entire household was probably a cultural thing: the wife submits to the husband and the children submit to the parents. I should also note that nowhere in that Acts 18 verse does it say that Crispus' family was baptized, though it's implied that since they believed they were indeed baptized.

My two cents is that we're making a bigger deal of it than it's worth: if you don't baptize your kids, I'm not going to sneer at you. If you do, I still won't. It's all just what you believe and how deeply you buy into the symbolic nature of the thing.  

[DvChWi]

None of those verses say that the whole household should be baptised.  I think the pattern we see in the NT is people believing then being baptised.  The heart of the infant baptism is based on the belief that the Church is the same as Isreal, which is a whole other debate.  

[oneafroboy]

The heart of the infant baptism is based on the belief that the Church is the same as Isreal, which is a whole other debate.

Anyone care to debate dispensationalism?  

Anyway, I know I'm a bit behind in the discussion, but I'll still post my views anyway. Add to the pot.

First off, I believe that the only way to salvation is by grace alone through faith in Jesus Christ's life, death *and* resurrection. (Life as a replacement for my sinful life, death as atonement for my sins, and resurrection to assure me both physical and spiritual ressurection. I die in Christ and am raised again in Him.) See Romans 6:1-14

Communion: I believe that communion is a symbolic representation of the body and blood given unto death as means for atonement for our sin. I think it is an excellent and reverent way to remember what Christ has done for us. At my church, we go to an altar from communion. Then the pastor tells us to make our confession and meekly kneel. Then there is a period of time before we partake in communion where you're supposed to reflect on what this really means. I don't believe in transubstantiation (the actualy body and blood of Jesus are present). There are others who believe that the spiritual presence of Jesus is there (the word escapes me now). I don't believe either, but I don't think it's that important. The importance is to remember Jesus. "Do this in remembrance of me."

Works: These are an outflowing of faith. It's not works=]salvation. Through our faith by God's grace we are justified. Then, by the Holy Spirit we are sanctified. We are "pruned", as it were. As we grow and mature and are pruned, we produce fruit, that is works. "...Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, 'You have faith, I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." (James 2:17-18). Although many misinterpret James, he makes it quite clear what his point is right here. We are called to be light and salt. Show your faith by works! (I also believe our lives will be judged by our response to grace and we will be rewarded accordingly...please correct me if I am wrong about this though!)

Free will: Skip.  

Church structure: Well, I don't have many well-defined ideas about this. I think churches should be a gather of believes as a way of unification so that they may fellowship, worship together, and do good deeds together. Vlad! made a valid point about having a bigger impact when a church or churches work together for a common good. (Then again, if we all just did a little bit in the smaller thing, we'd see a lot more changes in the bigger things.)

Pacifism: Well, I tend to be kind of a pacifist. And I think the war with Iraq was stupid, because we didn't know what a mess we were getting ourselves into (well, the powers that be didn't anyway). But I think that sometimes we are called to fight. Who will deny the great changes caused by the Civil War or World War II?

Authority of Scripture: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every godo work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17. (The other 3:16   ) When anything comes in to question, we must check the Scriptures. They are the final authority. Individuals can interpret the Scriptures, but it doesn't hurt to have someone wiser guiding us who has a masters in divinity or something like that.  

Baptism: Yeah, basically, I think that infant baptism is not so much biblical as it is "not non-Biblical". However, I think the kind of baptism repeatedly shown to us in the Bible is gospel preached=]people believe=]as a sign of faith, people baptised. But if people want to baptize infants to show that they will be committed to training up a child in the ways she should go, be my guest. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it is symbolic. Good point, though, polka dot, that just as circumcision has no value, then baptism as a replacement for circumcision also has no value. (It doesn't mean it's bad, it's just valueless.)

 

[Josh]

Anyone care to debate dispensationalism?

Actually, I'm teaching a class on that subject here in a couple of months. I believe in three dispensations; how about you?  =)  

[DvChWi]

Actually, I'm teaching a class on that subject here in a couple of months. I believe in three dispensations; how about you?  =)

Um, you're PCA(did I get that right?) but you believe in dispensations?  Thats different, I think.  

[Vlad!]

Pacifism: Well, I tend to be kind of a pacifist. And I think the war with Iraq was stupid, because we didn't know what a mess we were getting ourselves into (well, the powers that be didn't anyway). But I think that sometimes we are called to fight. Who will deny the great changes caused by the Civil War or World War II?

Did we really know what we were getting ourselves into in WWII? Can anyone really know? I tend to agree with you regarding Iraq in that I don't think the US was prepared to do it well and do it right, but I believe in the underlying necessity of freeing people who don't have the power to free themselves. But we had a 14-page discussion on this on the old forum without really getting anywhere, so maybe I should be quiet now

Dispensationalism is just a fancy word for a simple concept. Theologians tend to do that to look smart

You believe in THREE dispensations, eh? Well, let me bust out SIX for you:

Innocence - Eden
Conscience - After the fall to the flood
Government - After the flood: death penalty instituted
Law - Moses through Christ
Grace - The cross to the Kingdom
Millennial Kingdom - Christ's 1000-year reign

Boom. Now I only have to fear the person who comes up with seven or more    

[Josh]

I am PCA, but I think having three dispensations is fine; you don't really get into trouublesome theology until you start claiming that the Ot and NT are two different dispensations and, therefore, different books. The Bible is, after all, ONE book, not two books, but I digress...

I think there are:

Before the fall of man
After the return of Christ
Everything in between those two (this is where we are now, obviously)

I think grace existed long before Christ actually came to earth, and so I think all of Vlad!'s dispensations can be lumped into the one "in between" one.

[Vlad!]

Hmm...your view is pretty obvious, Josh: nobody can argue that God deals with man differently during those three periods o.O

I would argue that grace and law are two distinct ways that God related/relates to man throughout history. The rest of them are subtle differences, and I admit that I was being facetious when I suggested that more dispensations was better. But from Paul's writings alone we can discern that the Law did once have power over us, but now grace has delivered us from the Law. I suppose, now that I think about it, that the predestinationist view denies these divisions since people were always saved through God's choice and therefore through grace. Thus, since it returns to our old argument, I think I'll abandon this particular line of discussion

[polka_dot]

Whoa, backup!  What in the world is "dispensationalism"??  Forgive the baby Christian here!    

[Vlad!]

A belief that God interacts/relates with and to man differently in different 'ages' (or dispensations). www.dispensationalism.com should provide enough resources to get you started.

It's one of those minor beliefs that I was talking about earlier where it's not something I think believers should really have to worry about too much. It's just for us people who like to bat back and forth all these minor details  =)  

[bloop]

It's ok, polka dot.  I had no clue what "dispensationalism" was either until Vlad! explained.  Obviously, I haven't really thought about that issue.

[Vlad!]

Don't feel bad...I didn't know what it was either until about a year ago o_o

[polka_dot]

If any of you are curious as to what my church tells people what to do in the event war, you can read this:
http://www.mbconf.ca/believe/pamphlets/war.en.html
it's a bit simplistic, but it points out how you can be anti-violence and challenge evil at the same time.

I'm still searching for a good article backing up the pacifist position, I'll have to look through some of my church's old publications online.

Please remember that I don't even think I am a complete pacifist....so don't think I can debate with you if you don't agree with my church's position on it.

I personally don't think I could ever kill anyone.  Though people have proposed situations like "what if someone was going to kill your child, and the only way to stop him was to kill him - would you do it?"...and I honestly don't know.  I just hope God never puts me in that situation, I guess.  But I couldn't purposely set out with a gun in a war, knowing I was going to kill someone.  My problem with pacifism is that it implies all Christians shouldn't go to war, but I don't really know what to think.