« Southern Seminary straps on another one for their parishioner's pleasure. | Main | STOP CHEWING SO LOUD! »


Law Bob Esq.

I know how you feel....

What if I could show you a church that talked about salvation by grace, and thats all? What if I could show you a church that acted like a hospital for sinners rather than a museum for saints?

Would you like to know more?


What if I could show you a bridge that was only driven on by little old ladies on Sundays?

(Just kidding. Mostly.)


I'm not really interested in showing up to another church building. I'm not sure what a "hospital for sinners" is, and salvation by grace isn't something I require for church to have in their doctrinal statements.

Law Bob


Free will is a wonderful thing, but perhaps you'll entertain three questions for me:

1. Why the fear of a pile of bricks and fancy woodwork? Would you prefer a "church" that defined the "church" as the communion of all believers?

2. Why not salvation by grace? Its a lot easier that either working my way to heaven or trying to convince myself that I'm a pretty good guy and God will accept me for who I am. Heck it even has a scriptural basis.

3. What do you require for a church to have in its doctrinal statements?

A hospital for sinners would be a place where sinful people go to find comfort and absolution, kind of like how sick people go to a hospital to find care and antibiotics.

DISCLAIMER: I did a search for "Pop Christianity" because I think this is the greatest threat to the church today. That's how I found this blog. I've never found the words "Personal Relationship with Jesus" anywhere in the bible or other writings of the early christians.


So, LB, you mean to tell me that you googled "pop christianity" looking to pick a fight with somebody over it? I think that attitude is what spawns "pop Christianity" in the first place.

If you want to dialogue with the Pub, do so by all means. But this is no place for an Inquisition. This is a blog, not a catechism. Sheesh.


I'm not 100% sure but I think LB is saying that he agrees with me. I wrote an article called "Pop-Christianity Blows" a while back. That may be what LB is referring to. Or, I could be way off.

Buildings, to me, are signs that groups have gotten to big to have community with each other. If you can't meet at a resaraunt or someones house, then its too big for community.

I'm not against Salvation by grace. I simply said I don't need it to be in a doctrinal statement. I don't require churches to have doctrines. I don't like doctrine for the same reason I'm not a huge fan of the councils. Deciding who's "in" and who's "out" is antithetical to the gospel. I think.

Law Bob Esq.

You may both be right. I do agree with the article "Pop Christianity Blows." That's what brought me to this blog in the first place. I found it very insightful.

As for "picking a fight" I'm not sure what you mean. Yes, I like to find people with whom I disagree, and yes I like to argue with them. On the other hand, I'm also willing to concede a loss if the other side presents the better argument. Is this "picking a fight" or "having a dialog?"*

On the subject of councils, I have to disagree, at least in the case of the early ones like Nicea (Go Constantine!) It is incredibly important that, if you're going to tell people your faith is the only way to salvation, that you can tell them exactly what that faith is, and what it is not.

On the other hand, there is probably room for a "dialoge" on the nonessential points, like whether the spirit proceeds from the father alone, or from the father and the son... that kind of thing.

*Please contribute $5 to the Keep Dialoge a noun fund.


Since I don't ever plan on telling somebody that my faith is the only way to salvation then I guess I don't have that problem.

The comments to this entry are closed.