Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45
Look at the recent rullings some of the mainstream churches have done - they are now in the "false churches" because they are no longer teaching what the Bible says - they are teaching what the people want to hear and THAT is the dangerous churches.
I disagree with this blanket statement. It's true that on some issues, by their own standards of the basis of their religion, the leadership
of many denominations seems to have run off the rails. However, what I've seen and heard is that there's a split within most demonimations (I would say all but I don't know
about all of them) between the belief that specific beliefs matter to an individual's religious identity, and a belief in, for lack of a better characterization that I can come up with, "can't we all just get along?" This kind of belief has also been referred to as "deeds not creeds," meaning that specific doctrine isn't relevant. The two categories that each denomination can be roughly split into also form general clusters within the non-denominational catchall category.
I've heard of one large church that can be easily characterized as "deeds not creeds" because over half of its members in a survey (I don't have it in front of me; I'll Google and add a link later if anyone really cares) didn't believe in salvation coming through Jesus Christ. Now, whether that's your belief or not, you can still see how it would be nutty for a nominally Christ
ian church to not teach that!
Note that I'm not saying that traditional beliefs are automatically right. In fact, many beliefs that are looked on as traditional have no real basis in the scriptures that are cited as the foundation for the beliefs. As one example, the church in the original article is, according to the church website, part of the "KJV-only" movement. There is, obviously, no "thou shalt not use any translation other than the KJV" commandment, even in the KJV, undoubtedly at least is part because it didn't exist yet at the time. I don't deny that the KJV was probably the best fish in the scriptural pond at the time it was translated, on account of the fact that the main alternative was in Latin, which required translation for most people, and one of the main beliefs of the Reformation was that nothing else should come between the Christian and his (today we would add "or her") scriptures. However, 400 years later, the language of the early 1600s requires translation itself--many words have fallen out of common use, so that people no longer understand them, and many words' meanings have shifted, so that people only think they understand them and may in fact actually take in errors unless someone else explains it to them. This doesn't satisfy the original purpose of allowing independent study and understanding; it's a little better than "Latin-only," which was what some wanted at the time the KJV itself was translated, but falls short. It seems more accurate to go back as close to the original as possible, rather than re-translate the translation.
Yes, my ramble alarm went off a while ago.