Evangelical Congregations ?

13

Comments

  • Thankyou ,Mark in Manchester, for adding 'seeking ongoing salvation', which I should perhaps have put at the beginning.
    I think that all religions and philosophies, not just Christianity, would seek 'ongoing salvation' if not for all, at least for the devotees of the religion or the philosophy, whether that salvation be an eternal one in Heaven or the good health of society here on earth.

    Those seeking that 'ongoing salvation' will tend to divide themselves roughly into the four groups which I mentioned, though in each individual case, many of us will belong partly to all four of the groupings.
  • cgichard wrote: »
    In Anglican-speak, "pastoral discretion" tends to mean a bishop's bloody-mindedness.

    In RC speak it can mean PP's leeway when dealing with everything from unusual funeral requests that might not be included in the "red," to people who are in non-canonical relationships.
  • A good few years ago I remember a priest being very worried as to whether he could allow at the end of a Funeral Mass a recording of Edith Piaf singing' Non,je ne regrette rien.'
    His solution was to ask the family to arrange that part with their own music centre .

    This song is, I think,fairly well known but translated into English it means No, I don't regret anything which I did .
  • Forthview wrote: »
    A good few years ago I remember a priest being very worried as to whether he could allow at the end of a Funeral Mass a recording of Edith Piaf singing' Non,je ne regrette rien.'
    His solution was to ask the family to arrange that part with their own music centre .

    This song is, I think,fairly well known but translated into English it means No, I don't regret anything which I did .

    I played at a requiem the other week where the coffin came in to the theme from Z Cars (vamped by me) and went out to a recording of "Fly Me To The Moon. Pastoral discretion meant the PP felt in this case that the Mass began with the sign of the cross after the procession in and ended with the dismissal before the procession out.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    A good few years ago I remember a priest being very worried as to whether he could allow at the end of a Funeral Mass a recording of Edith Piaf singing' Non,je ne regrette rien.'

    His solution was to ask the family to arrange that part with their own music centre .

    This song is, I think,fairly well known but translated into English it means No, I don't regret anything which I did .

    I wonder if he found a way to drop 1 John 1 v 8 into the proceedings :smile:
  • The Orthodox could certainly use a glossary for noobs and even long timers. Some things are obvious like Theotokos or Orthros, but who could possibly know that an All-Night Vigil isn't even anything close to all night, and is simply a vespers service immediately followed by a matins service? (The question of why on earth you'd want to do that would have to be covered in a separate pamphlet.)
  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    Forthview wrote: »
    A good few years ago I remember a priest being very worried as to whether he could allow at the end of a Funeral Mass a recording of Edith Piaf singing' Non,je ne regrette rien.'
    His solution was to ask the family to arrange that part with their own music centre .

    This song is, I think,fairly well known but translated into English it means No, I don't regret anything which I did .

    Which Frank Sinatra translated as "I did it my way" (which I heard at far too many funerals, 0 being the optimum number) :grimace:
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    A good few years ago I remember a priest being very worried as to whether he could allow at the end of a Funeral Mass a recording of Edith Piaf singing' Non,je ne regrette rien.'
    His solution was to ask the family to arrange that part with their own music centre .

    This song is, I think,fairly well known but translated into English it means No, I don't regret anything which I did .

    I played at a requiem the other week where the coffin came in to the theme from Z Cars (vamped by me) and went out to a recording of "Fly Me To The Moon. Pastoral discretion meant the PP felt in this case that the Mass began with the sign of the cross after the procession in and ended with the dismissal before the procession out.

    Mine would be one of the Star Trek themes and Doctor Who as recessional... neither of which I would accept if I were presiding!

    A clerical colleague in the Church in Wales recently posted on a certain social media site, "Why do some people make a virtue of shopping locally and using local businesses, yet drive past their parish church for 20 minutes to a church they prefer?" I think he may have a point.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    I used to avoid a local shop because the stuff was overpriced, the fruit and veg were half way to being compost already and the owner had a rather casual attitude to use by dates.

    Analogous problems can arise with churches.
  • As has indeed been discussed (at length) on these boards in the past...
  • Zappa wrote: »

    Which Frank Sinatra translated as "I did it my way" (which I heard at far too many funerals, 0 being the optimum number) :grimace:

    A much more suitable line for the confessional.
  • Zappa wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    A good few years ago I remember a priest being very worried as to whether he could allow at the end of a Funeral Mass a recording of Edith Piaf singing' Non,je ne regrette rien.'
    His solution was to ask the family to arrange that part with their own music centre .

    This song is, I think,fairly well known but translated into English it means No, I don't regret anything which I did .

    Which Frank Sinatra translated as "I did it my way" (which I heard at far too many funerals, 0 being the optimum number) :grimace:

    It was Claude Francois' song 'Comme d'habitude" which was adapted by Frank Sinatra, although the sentiments of the adaptation are perhaps closer to the Piaf. Claude left this World "his way" as he electrocuted himself trying to change a bathroom lightbulb without drying himself off first. The song is below

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GME3fMeK5ts
  • Nice use of the subjunctive at 17 seconds in.
  • Nice use of the subjunctive at 17 seconds in.

    Pretty damning of the rest!
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Nice use of the subjunctive at 17 seconds in.

    Pretty damning of the rest!

    Not at all, although it's not my favourite song, it's superior to the English one (My Way). It's just that, as one who had to sit language exams in the Canadian Public Service from time to time, one focusses on the grammatical lessons available from popular music. Edith Piaf carried me through at least one viva.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Ah - Mlle Piaf and Viande Rose! I wonder if she ever thought of one of her songs being used for that purpose?
  • The Lutherans originally called themselves "evangelical catholics." Notice the small "c". While we have a lot in common with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, we cannot call ourselves Roman because we do not recognize the pope as the head of the church. (Yes, Anglicans are in the same boat.)

    For us "evangelical" is to share the Good News." Frankly, I do not here much "good news" from those who now claim to be be Evangelical. I hear a lot of TULIP* from them, but I don't think they can really believe that--so much cognitive dissonance in that line of reasoning. I am on a progressive Christian site where a lot of people from that tradition are coming on board since they do not think it fits their sense of reality.

    When I was around such churches, though, I found they wanted to establish a theocracy on earth. I end up wondering what that would be like. Seems like it does not work very well in Iran, frankly. More ever it amazed me that if a member of one such group chooses to join a similar group they would get rebaptized generally. As if, the previous baptism did not take?

    I would say the one characteristic of all denominations in the catholic tradition is we accept the validity of each other's baptism. Heck, we even accept the baptism of evangelicals as long as it is in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yes, there is some disagreement on the other sacrament(s), but at least we are talking to each other, trying to reach a common understanding. I would say we are actually very close in a number of areas. We are working to gain similar agreements with our Orthodox brothers and sisters (pesky filioque clause which Lutherans and Anglicans are willing to give up, but our Roman friends seem a little hesitant to do so),

    You do know how Evangelical congregations grow? Someone disagrees with someone else, and they divide, like an ameba.

    *To review:

    T= Total Depravity
    U= Unconditional Election
    L= Limited Atonement
    I = Irresistible Grace, and
    P= Preservation of the saints
  • I thought the T was for perseverance not preservation. Subtle difference there.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    That would be the P not the T :wink:
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    I think GR actually meant the P! And I agree with her.

    We have some nice tulip bulbs on order from a nursery ... that says nothing about our theological position, although I hope they are predestined to come up and flower!
  • JuanaCruzJuanaCruz Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Duplicate - sorry!

  • JuanaCruz wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Lutherans originally called themselves "evangelical catholics." Notice the small "c". While we have a lot in common with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, we cannot call ourselves Roman because we do not recognize the pope as the head of the church. (Yes, Anglicans are in the same boat.)

    For us "evangelical" is to share the Good News." Frankly, I do not here much "good news" from those who now claim to be be Evangelical. I hear a lot of TULIP* from them, but I don't think they can really believe that--so much cognitive dissonance in that line of reasoning. I am on a progressive Christian site where a lot of people from that tradition are coming on board since they do not think it fits their sense of reality.

    When I was around such churches, though, I found they wanted to establish a theocracy on earth. I end up wondering what that would be like. Seems like it does not work very well in Iran, frankly. More ever it amazed me that if a member of one such group chooses to join a similar group they would get rebaptized generally. As if, the previous baptism did not take?

    I would say the one characteristic of all denominations in the catholic tradition is we accept the validity of each other's baptism. Heck, we even accept the baptism of evangelicals as long as it is in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yes, there is some disagreement on the other sacrament(s), but at least we are talking to each other, trying to reach a common understanding. I would say we are actually very close in a number of areas. We are working to gain similar agreements with our Orthodox brothers and sisters (pesky filioque clause which Lutherans and Anglicans are willing to give up, but our Roman friends seem a little hesitant to do so),

    You do know how Evangelical congregations grow? Someone disagrees with someone else, and they divide, like an ameba.

    *To review:

    T= Total Depravity
    U= Unconditional Election
    L= Limited Atonement
    I = Irresistible Grace, and
    P= Preservation of the saints

    I think to be fair @Gramps49 you're perhaps equating "evangelical" here as ultra-Calvinsism? Even lots of calvinistic/reformed churches are more like 3.5 or 4 point Calvinism ...

    I see the main evangelical streams here in the UK as being Conservative (often quite Calivinistic under the bonnet), Liberal and Charismatic. These intersect denonimations like the CoE ... so it's often like a loose matrix management structure in a large company, not a hierarchy.

    I really don't think baptism (let alone re-baptism) is an issue at all apart from the whole adult vs child baptism area. The one I was at would accept you as a member with either as long as you could back it with personal conviction i.e. presbyterians and baptists were both equally welcome to become members , but it didn't baptise kids. There's probably a few extreme churches with the word "Exclusive" in their title, those aside I've never come across any that have re-baptism as a requirement or would promote it ...

    Evangelical congregations grow because they are great at promoting themselves as family friendly, are good at attracting younger people and getting them into Christianity. Round my area they probably the only churches genuinely growing.

    And even with splits they are excellent at forming alliances and groups which work together to ... evangelise, plant churches and so on so. Not all bad imo.

    Yes there is cognitive dissonance and for sure many people will move onto other churches or denominations or maybe leave totally but overall they grow the christian faith.

    Someone here said that being an "evangelical" is a phase you grow out of. I think more than a few here might agree!! :smile:
  • I think GR actually meant the P! And I agree with her.

    We have some nice tulip bulbs on order from a nursery ... that says nothing about our theological position, although I hope they are predestined to come up and flower!

    Only if they're born again tulips, sorry :smile:
  • Well, I can definitely say that they have been Chosen (by my wife).
  • I hope she was suitably selective.
  • Yes of course I meant the P. That will teach me not to post in a hurry!
  • JuanaCruz wrote: »
    I think to be fair @Gramps49 you're perhaps equating "evangelical" here as ultra-Calvinsism? Even lots of calvinistic/reformed churches are more like 3.5 or 4 point Calvinism ...
    Yep. Or perhaps Calvinism of even fewer points. It is worth remembering that the Synod of Dort happened decades after Calvin’s death, and “TULIP” was “extracted” from the Canons of Dort much later. It’s also worth remembering that Arminius was a student of Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva.

    Popular misconception notwithstanding, TULIP is not the sine qua non of Calvinism, much less of the Reformed tradition. My experience is that the places that focus on TULIP are selectively Calvinist or, as you say, ultra-Calvinist.

  • Well, I can definitely say that they have been Chosen (by my wife).

    Indeed, yet are the ones that don't blossom even tulips? And how many years does one wait to know?

    A systemic theology for bulbs is needed, which will inevitably branch out into factions like tulips and daffodils ...
  • I believe that with tulips they flower fine the first spring, but because of the way they are grown to get the bulbs they then don't flower the following year or two whilst they rebuild their energy stores.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    JuanaCruz wrote: »
    I think to be fair @Gramps49 you're perhaps equating "evangelical" here as ultra-Calvinsism? Even lots of calvinistic/reformed churches are more like 3.5 or 4 point Calvinism ...
    Yep. Or perhaps Calvinism of even fewer points. It is worth remembering that the Synod of Dort happened decades after Calvin’s death, and “TULIP” was “extracted” from the Canons of Dort much later. It’s also worth remembering that Arminius was a student of Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva.

    Popular misconception notwithstanding, TULIP is not the sine qua non of Calvinism, much less of the Reformed tradition. My experience is that the places that focus on TULIP are selectively Calvinist or, as you say, ultra-Calvinist.

    You got me reading (well ... Wikipedia) and I only just learned that the 5 Solae never came together as a whole i.e. single list until 1965? Fascinating.


  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    JuanaCruz wrote: »
    JuanaCruz wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Lutherans originally called themselves "evangelical catholics." Notice the small "c". While we have a lot in common with our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, we cannot call ourselves Roman because we do not recognize the pope as the head of the church. (Yes, Anglicans are in the same boat.)

    For us "evangelical" is to share the Good News." Frankly, I do not here much "good news" from those who now claim to be be Evangelical. I hear a lot of TULIP* from them, but I don't think they can really believe that--so much cognitive dissonance in that line of reasoning. I am on a progressive Christian site where a lot of people from that tradition are coming on board since they do not think it fits their sense of reality.

    When I was around such churches, though, I found they wanted to establish a theocracy on earth. I end up wondering what that would be like. Seems like it does not work very well in Iran, frankly. More ever it amazed me that if a member of one such group chooses to join a similar group they would get rebaptized generally. As if, the previous baptism did not take?

    I would say the one characteristic of all denominations in the catholic tradition is we accept the validity of each other's baptism. Heck, we even accept the baptism of evangelicals as long as it is in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yes, there is some disagreement on the other sacrament(s), but at least we are talking to each other, trying to reach a common understanding. I would say we are actually very close in a number of areas. We are working to gain similar agreements with our Orthodox brothers and sisters (pesky filioque clause which Lutherans and Anglicans are willing to give up, but our Roman friends seem a little hesitant to do so),

    You do know how Evangelical congregations grow? Someone disagrees with someone else, and they divide, like an ameba.

    *To review:

    T= Total Depravity
    U= Unconditional Election
    L= Limited Atonement
    I = Irresistible Grace, and
    P= Preservation of the saints

    I really don't think baptism (let alone re-baptism) is an issue at all apart from the whole adult vs child baptism area. The one I was at would accept you as a member with either as long as you could back it with personal conviction i.e. presbyterians and baptists were both equally welcome to become members , but it didn't baptise kids. There's probably a few extreme churches with the word "Exclusive" in their title, those aside I've never come across any that have re-baptism as a requirement or would promote it ...

    Contra this, our local baptists have re-baptised people, as did the local "community church" [baptists with the numbers filed off] where I grew up.
  • My experience with Baptists and independent evangelicals (who IME are non paedo-baptist) is that they will accept a "believers' baptism" from any tradition but offer and urge re-baptism for anyone "only" baptised as an infant.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Yep. Or perhaps Calvinism of even fewer points. It is worth remembering that the Synod of Dort happened decades after Calvin’s death, and “TULIP” was “extracted” from the Canons of Dort much later. It’s also worth remembering that Arminius was a student of Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva.

    Popular misconception notwithstanding, TULIP is not the sine qua non of Calvinism, much less of the Reformed tradition. My experience is that the places that focus on TULIP are selectively Calvinist or, as you say, ultra-Calvinist.
    Not ultra-Calvinist, but sub-Calvinist, in much the same way as many of the opponents of Vatican II are sub-Thomists.

  • I grew up in a Baptist church but left ( unbaptised) when I went to university where I became an Anglican and was baptised as an adult. As it was not by immersion, I am not sure that it would have been acceptable to a Baptist church.
  • The Baptist Church I grew up on would have accepted it, as it was "believers" baptism. The amount of water is not the issue.
  • Orthodox tangent/
    I couldn't see how they were going to baptise Gérard Depardieu in that font by total immersion.
    /tangent
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    My experience with Baptists and independent evangelicals (who IME are non paedo-baptist) is that they will accept a "believers' baptism" from any tradition but offer and urge re-baptism for anyone "only" baptised as an infant.

    Yes, that was certainly my experience when part of a ‘restoration / new’ church many years ago.
  • Enoch wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Yep. Or perhaps Calvinism of even fewer points. It is worth remembering that the Synod of Dort happened decades after Calvin’s death, and “TULIP” was “extracted” from the Canons of Dort much later. It’s also worth remembering that Arminius was a student of Beza, Calvin’s successor in Geneva.

    Popular misconception notwithstanding, TULIP is not the sine qua non of Calvinism, much less of the Reformed tradition. My experience is that the places that focus on TULIP are selectively Calvinist or, as you say, ultra-Calvinist.
    Not ultra-Calvinist, but sub-Calvinist, in much the same way as many of the opponents of Vatican II are sub-Thomists.
    I like that. Thanks.

    As for re-baptism, around here (American South) it is quite common, though there are exceptions, among Baptist and evangelical churches that they will accept a believer’s baptism by immersion from another church, but they will require re-baptism (though they would consider it the first baptism) of someone baptized as an infant baptism or not by immersion.

    Then there are the Baptist churches around here that require baptism of anyone joining the church, even those baptized in other Baptist churches.

  • No, No and thrice No.
  • In the Name of the No, and of the No, and of the No!

    Why on earth would Baptist churches reject the baptisms performed by other Baptist churches?
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Because - sadly - there are different denominations within Baptist-ness, some of which don't think that the others are Proper Christians.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    In the Name of the No, and of the No, and of the No!

    Why on earth would Baptist churches reject the baptisms performed by other Baptist churches?
    In general, the Baptist churches that do this don’t see it as rejecting the baptisms performed in other Baptist churches, nor do they see baptism as something unrepeatable. In their view, baptism is a specific form of testimony to one’s faith, not something in which God acts or by which any change of any kind happens.

    That, coupled with the idea that the local congregation is the New Testament understanding of “church,” leads to a practice where any time someone seeks to join a particular local Baptist congregation, making a testimony through baptism may be required.

    The Baptist churches that do this are the minority around here, but they do exist. But the practice reflects a very different understanding of “baptism” and “church” than many of us are used to, I think, more than it reflects rejection of previous baptisms, per se.

  • ZappaZappa Ecclesiantics Host
    cgichard wrote: »
    Orthodox tangent/
    I couldn't see how they were going to baptise Gérard Depardieu in that font by total immersion.
    /tangent

    Luke 14:23c pertains
  • Any Orthodox Shipmates able to explain if any parts of Orthodoxy baptize converts already baptized elsewhere? If this has happened is it because the earlier baptism was deemed invalid, and if so, are there any non-Orthodox communions whose baptisms are considered valid by all of Orthodoxy?

    As for chrismation/confirmation and ordination, are those mysteries/sacraments deemed repeatable for the same person in Orthodoxy, and/or is there disagreement within Orthodoxy about this? If someone is chrismated or ordained for a second time, is it only because the first time was deemed invalid or is it also possible or even necessary when someone leaves Orthodoxy upon their return?

  • @Nick Tamen - thank you. ISWYM.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited September 2020
    Any Orthodox Shipmates able to explain if any parts of Orthodoxy baptize converts already baptized elsewhere?

    This one can try.
    If this has happened is it because the earlier baptism was deemed invalid,

    Yes. Maybe not with that word ("invalid"). They'd say it wasn't a baptism, or a real baptism.
    and if so, are there any non-Orthodox communions whose baptisms are considered valid by all of Orthodoxy?

    Really the differentiation is not who baptized the person in the first place, but which Orthodox jurisdiction they are wanting to join. ROCOR re-baptises about everyone (although they don't call it RE-baptism because the first one wasn't "really" a baptism, yada yada). Other jurisdictions are more forgiving. None will take you if you weren't baptised with a Trinitarian formula (NOT Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer -- it needs to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
    As for chrismation/confirmation and ordination, are those mysteries/sacraments deemed repeatable for the same person in Orthodoxy, and/or is there disagreement within Orthodoxy about this? If someone is chrismated or ordained for a second time, is it only because the first time was deemed invalid or is it also possible or even necessary when someone leaves Orthodoxy upon their return?

    I've never heard of anyone being re-chrismated with Orthodox chrismation. Orthodox tend to be like Catholics in this "leave and return" thing. Once an Orfie, always an Orfie. You'd be received back with confession and absolution, subject to whatever penance is deemed appropriate.
  • Bloody hell. If one of the hosts could fix my code I'd be grateful.
  • Because - sadly - there are different denominations within Baptist-ness, some of which don't think that the others are Proper Christians.

    Following this logic, one is baptised in the name of the Holy local church doctrinal distinctives?

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Any Orthodox Shipmates able to explain if any parts of Orthodoxy baptize converts already baptized elsewhere?

    This one can try.
    If this has happened is it because the earlier baptism was deemed invalid,

    Yes. Maybe not with that word ("invalid"). They'd say it wasn't a baptism, or a real baptism.
    and if so, are there any non-Orthodox communions whose baptisms are considered valid by all of Orthodoxy?

    Really the differentiation is not who baptized the person in the first place, but which Orthodox jurisdiction they are wanting to join. ROCOR re-baptises about everyone (although they don't call it RE-baptism because the first one wasn't "really" a baptism, yada yada). Other jurisdictions are more forgiving. None will take you if you weren't baptised with a Trinitarian formula (NOT Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer -- it needs to be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
    As for chrismation/confirmation and ordination, are those mysteries/sacraments deemed repeatable for the same person in Orthodoxy, and/or is there disagreement within Orthodoxy about this? If someone is chrismated or ordained for a second time, is it only because the first time was deemed invalid or is it also possible or even necessary when someone leaves Orthodoxy upon their return?

    I've never heard of anyone being re-chrismated with Orthodox chrismation. Orthodox tend to be like Catholics in this "leave and return" thing. Once an Orfie, always an Orfie. You'd be received back with confession and absolution, subject to whatever penance is deemed appropriate.

    Do "subconditional" baptisms and other mysteries/sacraments exist in Orthodoxy? (If you are not sure if the baptism that a child received was a "real" baptism, the priest does a subconditional baptism ("If you are not already baptized, I baptize you...") in order to avoid the sacrilege of repeating the sacrament of baptism.)
Sign In or Register to comment.