Comments | narrow_streets: (без темы)

narrow_streets

(Untitled)

Jun 25, 2006 09:58

I just found out that the Salvation Army doesn't do baptism and the Lord's Supper. I am very disappointed. I had thought, wow, now I have a church that is spiritually very active, and cares for the needy first. I had been really happy. Now I find that they forego on two very important, two beloved sacraments. This is rather depressing. Why did they ( Read more... )

Comments 4

callmeal June 25 2006, 13:01:24 UTC

Do you even listen to yourself? Doing good can not take precedence over a ritual?

A quick googling revealed to me that they have reasons for foregoing the sacraments (http://www.heilsarmee.de/a-z/sakramente.php?sel=2) How valid these reasons are, I can not judge, but what they say sounds sensible within the christian context.

narrow_streets June 25 2006, 13:37:46 UTC

Jens, the necessity for a christian is to do both good works and to believe like the bible prescribes it. I went to the Salvation Army because the lutheran church I first went to was, in my oppinion, not too concerned about good works when compared to the Salvation Army. I am not merely judgemental about this, but I really want a more active church. However, now at the Salvation Army I find activity, but in the same time foregoing on the Lord's Supper and Baptism which also doesn't seem to be correct. It's not so much that I am legalistic as it is called, it's that I want to partake in the Lord's Supper, and that I want to be baptized. Why can't christianity finally try to do all, both the spiritual as the bible demands it, and the practical good works? This is what troubles me so much. Your question about doing good doesn't really make sense, because ministering the Lord's Supper is part of doing good. That's the same reason why I believe you can't just forget about belief and rely on good works alone. God wants fellowship with us, ( ... )

callmeal June 25 2006, 18:39:14 UTC

Well, basically you claim that the salvation army are not "proper" christians, because they don't do the sacraments. The SA on the other hand argues that fellowship with god cannot be achieved merely by a ritual. I cannot argue for either case, because it is all bollocks to me either way, but from what I can see, there is more to belief than the sacraments, so saying that the SA forgets about belief is rather short-sighted.

But hey, who am I to tell you what church to go to. If the SA is not your thing, then don't go there. God knows there are enough confessions out there that you will eventually find one to fit your personal belief.

Shouldn't we therefor do as He says?

Don't even get me started on this one.

narrow_streets June 25 2006, 19:43:21 UTC

I am not saying they are not proper christians, I am saying they are not doing like the bible prescribes it. And the Lord's Supper, and baptism, aren't arbitrary commandments, they are very central to the faith. It's like saying, believe and don't pray. I do concede that people can have belief without the sacraments, and that belief is also highly important. But that's the point where it all looks ludicrous and even comical - we get to know, from the bible, about certain pillars of the faith, and many seem to choose one favourite pillar and forget about the rest. That's not the ideal solution. I am not saying all for the ritual, and forget about belief - I say let's do both. And yes, as a non-christian you may have little eye for all of this. It's a big controversy in christendom, and many christians get to know about it. For example, Luther said the epistle of James, a book of the new testament, is an epistle of straw, while for catholics it's a very important book. We should not pick and choose but rather acknowledge the whole of ( ... )