The modern Protestant church doesn’t sufficiently emphasize the need for church attendance.

Interesting take, Aglifter. I can't vouch for all Protestant denominations, nor even all Southern Baptist churches. I can say that the church that I attend has a preacher who definitely emphasizes the importance of attendance. More than that though, he emphasizes attitude and state of mind during attendance.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
A separate question:

Can someone give me an example of dogma, and an example of doctrine?

I am not confident in the differences between the two, and when to use which.

I had an inkling based on “he can be so dogmatic.” I asked ChatGPT and it’s not far from Sigfreund’s explanation and I can agree with both.


"Doctrine" and "dogma" are terms often used in religious, philosophical, or ideological contexts, but they have distinct meanings:

### Doctrine

1. **Definition**: Doctrine refers to a set of beliefs or principles taught and upheld by a religious, political, or other institutional organization.

2. **Flexibility**: Doctrines are generally more flexible and open to interpretation and evolution over time. They can be debated, reinterpreted, and updated as new insights or understandings emerge.

3. **Scope**: Doctrines cover a broad range of teachings. They can encompass various aspects of belief systems, including ethical, moral, and theoretical components.

4. **Examples**: In Christianity, doctrines include concepts such as the Trinity, salvation, and sacraments. In a secular context, you might refer to political doctrines like capitalism or democracy.

### Dogma

1. **Definition**: Dogma consists of established beliefs or principles set by an authority, often considered incontrovertibly true and not open to dispute or analysis.

2. **Rigidity**: Dogmas are rigid and must be accepted without question by adherents. They are considered fundamental truths that define the core identity of the belief system.

3. **Scope**: Dogma is narrower and often focuses on fundamental, non-negotiable elements of a belief system.

4. **Examples**: In Catholicism, dogmas include the Immaculate Conception and the Resurrection of Jesus. They must be accepted by all adherents of the faith.

### Comparison

- **Authority**: Both doctrine and dogma derive authority from a governing or authoritative body within their respective systems.
- **Influence**: Both serve to guide the beliefs and behaviors of followers.
- **Acceptance**: Doctrines allow for interpretation, while dogmas require unwavering acceptance.

### Contrast

- **Flexibility vs. Rigidity**: Doctrines may evolve with new interpretations, whereas dogmas are fixed and immutable.
- **Scope of Beliefs**: Doctrines tend to cover a wider array of teachings, whereas dogmas focus on essential truths that define the belief system's core.

In summary, while both doctrine and dogma provide a framework for beliefs, the key difference lies in their flexibility and openness to change. Doctrines can adapt, whereas dogmas are steadfast and foundational to the faith or system they belong to.

KSGM, there’s too much money to be made in the televangelist stuff.

Billy Graham et al were quite adamant, as far as I know, about needing a church for spiritual growth and development.

Lutherans do require the Eucharist and confession, AFAIK.

I think the mega church also tends to negate the feeling of community.

I know God has a demand for mega churches - I met a pastor in Houston who founded 4 in a row, while trying to start smaller churches - and they may be great places for theological lectures.

CS Lewis gave widely broadcast theological speeches.

But, the need for in person fellowship and continual education and spiritual growth seems to be missing at most churches.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
The modern Protestant church doesn’t sufficiently emphasize the need for church attendance.

This is a very general statement. It does apply to some Protestant churches but not the majority.

The Protestant church we currently attend emphasizes fellowship with other believers, community, service, and reaching out to non-believers.

It is a very large church. My wife and I lead a community group every Saturday night after church (we attend the Saturday evening service) and the off week, we meet at our home for fellowship and prayer.

The two previous churches we attended emphasized the same.

We did attend a very BIG mega church for a few months in Georgia but it just was not for us. They did not believe in membership and every sermon was a show, broadcast world-wide.

In light of recent events, and recent lounge discussions, I have a question.

Regardless of how you identify Mohammad: as a prophet, a false prophet, a charlatan, etc, it seems indisputable that God used the man to fulfil prophecy regarding the descendants of Ishmael.

What does this mean?

I like to think that much of what God does He does to offer us opportunities to excel in the execution of His intent.

An obvious purpose of prophecy fulfilment is to provide examples of His truth. Conviction for unbelievers.

How does the house of Ishmael, and Islam, give Him, and us, opportunities?

Why was Islam in His plan all along?

Obviously I am not expecting someone to have a definitive answer. I am merely curious as to speculations.

From the moment Lucifer fell and resolved to be rebellious, there’s been opposition in all things. God desires we choose righteousness. Some of us choose evil. The consequences follow. We have been given free will by God. The consequences of choosing evil causes us to lose it.

You make waaay too many assumptions, KSGM. Islam was never in God’s plan. When God spoke of the descendants of Ishmael, he was giving us a glimpse into the future.

God’s hope is for everyone to be saved. Obviously that isn’t going to happen.

quote:

Islam was never in God’s plan. When God spoke of the descendants of Ishmael, he was giving us a glimpse into the future.

Well, here we are, in the future, with the descendants of Ishmael as the perpetrators of Islam. That's the logic that informed my assumptions.

It's interesting that he would put a people at such a disadvantage, when it comes to salvation. Is it telling of believers' failure to spread the good news, that Islam has gained such worldwide traction?

I appreciate everyone's response. I am all-the-time learning.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
The modern Protestant church doesn’t sufficiently emphasize the need for church attendance.

That's kind of a broad brush there...

I attend a Protestant church and they are HUGE on attendance and joining home groups and serving there which I do on the Security team.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

Islam was never in God’s plan. When God spoke of the descendants of Ishmael, he was giving us a glimpse into the future.

Well, here we are, in the future, with the descendants of Ishmael as the perpetrators of Islam. That's the logic that informed my assumptions.

It's interesting that he would put a people at such a disadvantage, when it comes to salvation. Is it telling of believers' failure to spread the good news, that Islam has gained such worldwide traction?

I appreciate everyone's response. I am all-the-time learning.

God didn’t put anyone at a disadvantage. They have free will just as everyone else. And Muslim nations are notorious for murdering Christians and Christian missionaries.

You need to read the Bible and learn more about God’s nature instead of making false assumptions.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
... it seems indisputable that God used the man to fulfil prophecy regarding the descendants of Ishmael.

I believe that you, and many people, have it backwards. God didn't use Mohammed for anything. Mohammed used God.
He was a warlord, not a prophet, and it was a whole lot easier recruit an army if he made them believe that he was a prophet. He saw the following that Judaism and Christianity had and the light bulb went off.

I am getting through the Bible. I have done a cover-to-cover of the NT, and revisit it regularly. I am getting through the OT now; almost done with Numbers. It's admittedly slow-going.

God may not have deliberately put anyone at a disadvantage, but isn't it accurate to say that someone born in the USA has an inherently better chance at understanding and accepting the truth of salvation in Christ than someone born into Islam in the Middle East?

quote:

I believe that you, and many people, have it backwards. God didn't use Mohammed for anything. Mohammed used God.

Well, I want to have it right. Hence the prompt of discussion on the matter.

Does it not seem logical that Mohammad's actions fulfilled prophecy regarding the "house of Ishmael"?

Genesis 16:7-12
Genesis 21:12-20

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

quote:

Islam was never in God’s plan. When God spoke of the descendants of Ishmael, he was giving us a glimpse into the future.

Well, here we are, in the future, with the descendants of Ishmael as the perpetrators of Islam. That's the logic that informed my assumptions.

It's interesting that he would put a people at such a disadvantage, when it comes to salvation. Is it telling of believers' failure to spread the good news, that Islam has gained such worldwide traction?

I appreciate everyone's response. I am all-the-time learning.

God didn’t put anyone at a disadvantage. They have free will just as everyone else. And Muslim nations are notorious for murdering Christians and Christian missionaries.

You need to read the Bible and learn more about God’s nature instead of making false assumptions.

I doubt any human being can understand God's nature that they can be certain of not making a false assumption.

"Islam was never in God's plan." "It's interesting that he would put a people at such a disadvantage."

These are statements that are made from the limited perspective of humans but break apart against what the Bible says of God. People ought to start with the basics and have them firmly in place and bounce any deductions or inferences against the basic fundamental facts about God.

Here is what the Bible says about God: 1. That God is eternal; he existed before time was a thing that He created as part of creation. 2. God exists apart from creation and that the universe is upheld by His powers. 3. That God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. 4. He is love. He loves the world so much that He sent His only begotten Son to be born a man, suffer, die, and resurrect so that whosoever believes in Him might have eternal life. 5. That man apparently has the free will to believe or not believe in the only begotten Son of God because the promise of eternal life is extended to "whosoever."

Saying Islam was never in God's plan goes against the tenet that God is all knowing. Of course, God knew about Islam even before creation. In the same way, that Joseph's brothers had the free will and responsibility of tying Joseph, casting him into the well, and selling him into slavery, Joseph's brothers meant for evil against Joseph but "God meant it for good to bring about this present result, to keep many people alive (Genesis 50:20). While Joseph's brothers had freewill, God's omniscience, omnipotence, and sovereignty accounted for their spur-of-the moment actions as part of His divine plan that God told Abraham beforehand in Genesis 15:13-14 "Then God said to Abram, “Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, where they will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years. But I will also judge the nation whom they will serve, and afterward they will come out with many possessions." Joseph's brothers selling him into slavery allowed Joseph to go to Egypt where he rose in prominence despite setbacks which allowed for Israel to move to Egypt where they then were enslaved as foretold by God.

That promise that Abraham's descendants will be strangers in a land not theirs for 400 years as slaves and oppressed for 400 years was obviously Egypt from which they came out with many possessions. But God told Abraham all this even before Isaac, the child of the promise, was born. Just in this one instance, you see the paradox of human freewill and supposed random events all coming together as part of God's plan. Do I understand how it all works together? I don't; I just know what the Bible says and take it for what it is. Human free will and God's sovereignty does not go well together from a human logical perspective but, because of what I have seen thus far, I am confident it will all be reconciled in the end.

Abraham had the choice to continue believing God that he would get a descendant through his wife, Sarah. But, instead, he went with his wife's plan and impregnated Hagar, Egyptian maidservant of Sarah, and got Ishmael. Did God not know this was going to happen? God knows everything. Did God cause this to happen? This wasn't God's plan but He accounted for it even before creation. He had to have done so because God knew everything even before there was time; remember, even before time, God is already. As for Ishmael, God said, speaking to Abraham, "I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year. (Genesis 17:20-21)."

Ishmael is part of God's plan as in God has accounted for him as part of his plan in the same way that what Joseph's brothers meant as evil for Joseph, God meant for good to save many people. Romans 8:28 says, "God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose."

I know Romans 8:29 continues with "For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." which does call for the idea of predestination of those who will be saved. But, again, I accept the concept of both those being predestined to salvation and people having the responsibility to choose to believe in Jesus as a paradox in human logic but, apparently, both are true in the same way that there is only one God but the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

Because God is love, that negates any idea that he would put any people at a disadvantage as that would not be a very loving God at all. In the end, I doubt anyone destined for hell will be able to claim they did not get enough opportunity to believe in Jesus. People are continuing to be saved whatever their circumstances may be. The Bible paints a picture that when the world is very much united against Christianity such as when you need to take the mark of the beast or be cut off from the economic system of the world (revelations 13:16-17), that is when the greatest soul winning process will take place (Revelations 15:2-3). When the time comes when the whole world will be against Israel and poised for its ultimate destruction is when Israel's Messiah will appear (Zechariah 12:8-10). The people involved in persecuting Christians or Israel are not being controlled by God to do so. What they mean for evil, God means for good to save many people.

quote:

Originally posted by uvahawk:
I was raised as a Christian. I have trouble with the discussions over the many "right" or "correct" paths to "salvation". I believe in the end that it is important to believe in God and/or Christ, repent of your sins, and ask for Salvation. I do not believe there is a single, "right" path. So much depends on what path you have chosen and how you have lived your life. None of us are without sin or fault.

The Gate is narrow, the path to the gate however is very wide.

So I now have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition and the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults. Big books. I don't remember having books this big, when I was educated as a kid.

Pretty cool though. Do Protestants have similar references? I perceive this Catechism book as a consolidation of studious interpretations of the bible. Obviously everything is cross-referenced and double verified and agreed-upon by a large number of biblical scholars. Curious what scripture has to say about this or that? Reference it in the index, and you've got it.

Presumably Protestant denominations have consolidated references like this. I suppose comprehensive study bibles are similar.

Unrelated to my previous post. Interesting video. I don't know all there is to know about the history of the Bible, so this stuff is neat to hear.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
I believe that you, and many people, have it backwards. God didn't use Mohammed for anything. Mohammed used God.
He was a warlord, not a prophet, and it was a whole lot easier recruit an army if he made them believe that he was a prophet. He saw the following that Judaism and Christianity had and the light bulb went off.

I think that's right, Gus. I've called Mohammed a false prophet in the Hate Israel thread. He did the work of the devil, in prophet disguise.

It is understood that there is no worse sin than committing evil in God's name. Dennis Prager put out a video a few years back explaining this and the commonly mistranslated Third Commandment.

I can't find said video at the moment, but this article sums it up pretty well.