LifeChurchTV

[kmf563]

m -

I believe I did go through the scripture of what we were specifically talking about - without going back, I believe it was the book of Acts. As I remember, it's not that I didn't supply the information it was that you didn't agree with it and I said I wanted to just let it go and agree to disagree. Obvioulsy you can't do that. And I believe the argument was about being saved, not the church doctrine.

[Martin]

kmf, don't get me wrong it's nothing personal and i haven't lost any sleep over it... just a side effect of having a ridiculously good memory.

while i did let it go, it still doesn't change the fact that you chose to 'bow out' of the discussion rather than burdening yourself to explain your interpretation of that scripture. you disagreed, but couldn't or wouldn't provide any scriptural basis for that disagreement.

the very nature of salvation ('being saved') is a matter of church doctrine and core belief. if how, when and why a person is 'saved' is not church doctrine, what is? -M

[jbrown84]

I'm still baffled by the comment that LifeChurch is based on Catholicism...

[Martin]

^ me, too... but i'm not sure if that was serious or sarcastic. -M

[kmf563]

Honestly, I'm quite lazy. haha. I bowed out of the conversation because I didn't feel as though anything was getting accomplished and it was a really indepth serious topic. I pop in and out of here while I am at work and just really don't have the time to look up the scriptures and things I want to use. I wish I could say I have all the answers and know the Bible by heart, but I just don't. I only have my opinions and things I learn along the way. And again, I really do understand where you are coming from and agree with some of your valid points.
Sorry! I know it's horrible and I shouldn't start things I can't finish.

[jbrown84]

Still nothing about your Catholic comment??

[kmf563]

sorry....it wasn't sarcasm. I should have said very loosely based though. Craig was raised Catholic and has a lot of the same views, we have communion, we have the same administrative hierarchy, so there are a lot of things based or common with the Catholic community. We actually discussed this at church once upon a time...if I have time this afternoon I will look and see if I can find more info to show what I am talking about since I did just throw it out and there and confused a lot of you. And please don't think I am trying to say we are Catholic - all I am saying is that when you are raised a certain way you tend to carry those views with you and if you lead people by those views they tend to shine through. Does that make sense??

[jbrown84]

Communion isn't exactly exclusive to Catholicism.

[metro]

kmf, I think you're a little off that saying lifechurch.tv has a similar hierarchy to the catholic church, in fact I'd say the church is far from it. that's why its proven so effective. I'm not sure about Craig's Catholic background either, I'd have to get back with you on that one.

[writerranger]

kmf, I think you're a little off that saying lifechurch.tv has a similar hierarchy to the catholic church, in fact I'd say the church is far from it. that's why its proven so effective. I'm not sure about Craig's Catholic background either, I'd have to get back with you on that one.

I usually don't know much about the Lifechurch stuff discussed here, but I DO KNOW that Craig went to Oklahoma City University, which would be a strange choice if he was really raised Catholic.

----------------

[Martin]

kmf, it's not that horrible... i'd even say you went through more lengths to explain than any other pro-lifechurch person posting in this thread. we all have our opinions... to me, though, it's more important that one's opinion has a basis in scripture rather than what just 'feels' right by intuition or emotion.

i would say that the notion of communion and administrative hierarchy are quite different in lifechurch than it is in the catholic church....

as far as i know, lifechurch doesn't have any form of 'priesthood' that is separated from the 'laity'. while one could argue that craig acts as a central figure to the church's structure, the nature of his authority and such is entirely dissimilar to that of the pope. e.g., i really doubt that craig would claim to be the 'successor to the prince of the apostles.'

furthermore, communion takes a different role in the catholic church. there, it is a rite that is performed by an ordained priesthood. the catholic faith teaches transubstantiation... the idea that the emblems of communion are actually transformed into the physical blood and body of christ when the priest goes through the right motions. it would shock me if lifechurch taught that doctrine...

not to be picky, but wanted to set that straight. -M

[Martin]

...that's why its proven so effective.

while the methods have proven effective in attracting large numbers of people to lifechurch services, i don't think anyone has come anywhere close to proving that lifechurch is effective in producing devoted followers of christ who truly know and understand the scriptures they claim to believe in. i still challenge the lifechurch supporters here to back their doctrine up with sound interpretation of scripture... something that really hasn't been done here. -M

[Tim]

while the methods have proven effective in attracting large numbers of people to lifechurch services, i don't think anyone has come anywhere close to proving that lifechurch is effective in producing devoted followers of christ who truly know and understand the scriptures they claim to believe in. i still challenge the lifechurch supporters here to back their doctrine up with sound interpretation of scripture... something that really hasn't been done here. -M

Note to self...neverevereverever debate mmm.

[kmf563]

Oh I've been looking and looking for what I'm wanting to explain why I said that and I just can't find what I am wanting. As for the set up of the church, I was speaking more of the general administration, not so much the titles. But I very much see what you guys are saying and would agree with your assessment. I'm okay with saying I am wrong.

And m - this is the only thing I can offer you for scriptures that go with LC and their doctrine. If it helps, great, if not...I don't know what to tell you. This is what we believe and the scriptures we based our beliefs upon.

| LifeChurch.tv

[Martin]

kmf, i've read that but thanks for posting it.

tim, thanks... i think. ; )

-M

[metro]

Well said Tim, no matter what you "scriptural evidence" you give mmm, he won't be pleased. Just like kmf's post above, the churches official beliefs (including scriptural references) have been given to mmm many times but he seems to ignore them and push them aside. he's wanting to hear a different story so he can prove he's right.

[kmf563]

thank you metro.

well, m exactly what are you wanting then if you have read that? Maybe we just aren't getting exactly what it is you are looking for.

[Martin]

metro, but the scriptures given on that page only give part of the story. your core of beliefs takes those verses out of context and contradicts other scriptures in the bible. i can accept that some verses can be interpreted in multiple ways, but metro, you've rarely if at all quoted scripture in your arguments supporting lifechurch and its practices.

i'm wanting to 'hear a different story'? since all i've ever asked for is scripture... what's that even supposed to mean? -M

[Tim]

Well said Tim, no matter what you "scriptural evidence" you give mmm, he won't be pleased. Just like kmf's post above, the churches official beliefs (including scriptural references) have been given to mmm many times but he seems to ignore them and push them aside. he's wanting to hear a different story so he can prove he's right.

Actually, I was reminding my self that mmm is quite a poster, and that it would not behoove me to cross swords with him. Of course, the same applies to you metro!

[kmf563]

Sorry I still just don't get what you are wanting. All scriptures in the Bible can be taken out of context and mean something different than what you want them to mean...I think we argued this before...LOL. I enjoy debating with you mmm, but I just am not patient enough to do it. So...at this point I say "uncle"

[writerranger]

Sorry I still just don't get what you are wanting. All scriptures in the Bible can be taken out of context and mean something different than what you want them to mean...I think we argued this before...LOL. I enjoy debating with you mmm, but I just am not patient enough to do it. So...at this point I say "uncle"

That's the point I made in another thread, for every 'tit' there is a 'tat' no matter WHAT religion, church, doctrine, denomination, etc.

------------------

[Martin]

while i realize the following is just rhetorical at this point... i guess what i was looking for was just some scriptural justification that fills in some of the discrepencies i've pointed out between lifechurch's doctrine and what the scriptures say. while lifechurch's site (like any other) just hits the high points of what the church believes, i was hoping to hear from some of those that attend lc or have like faith to fill in those blanks with their own words and scriptural references. while i appreciate that some scripture can be interpreted a multitude of ways, some of it (like acts 2), i just don't see how some arrive at their conclusions... i truly am curious to understand.

don't get me wrong... i'm grateful to live in a country where every person can express their faith and beliefs (or not) as each individual sees fit. however, i also think that that right doesn't shield us from the responsibility of explaining and defending the beliefs that we hold, whatever they may be. giving and taking criticism helps us to better understand others' beliefs as well as our own.

keep in mind that i continue to see this thread in the context of a 'faith and values' discussion about lifechurch and its doctrine and practices... in pretty much any other context, i wouldn't be anywhere nearly as critical... so don't get the impression that if i bumped into a lifechurcher on the street that i'd instantly start spouting off these concerns.

in any event, it's been fun... can't wait till the next bit of lc 'news' gets posted here. ; )

-M

[mwmcl]

So is Craig like Peter or Paul? I've asked for a scriptural defense of church franchising and I get the same answer: "t saves money, it cuts overhead, it makes sense, it streamlines, it makes things efficient, etc."

What I don't get is mush Church history, New Testament or even the Old Testament. The Bible is replete with examples of people drawing large crowds... but it is also replete with examples, explanations, boundaries and warnings for church bodies to heed.

I'm not sure how else to phrase it than that.
If there is no biblical defense then why would you do anything in His name if you don't have His blessing? If there is a biblical defense then someone should post it because as mmm and myself keep getting zero answers to the same simple question... one can only draw one conclusion. There is no biblical/scriptural defense for the reasons why LifeChurch.tv franchises.

[metro]

mwmcl, have you provided biblical/scriptural evidence on why you think "franchising" is wrong? The same with making an efficient organization and utilizing resources wisely. One thing you forget is that I never claim I have all the answers, and know my Bible verses by memory as well as I would like or you would like me to. But I do the best I know how, and point you to the right place at our church or to an online sermon (by various pastors at our church) that DO PROVIDE SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT and that you can also take it into the context in which it was first written and how the messenger is presenting it. Not only the messenger who wrote the scripture, but the "messenger" who is preaching on it at our church. This never seems to be enough for you or mmm nor do you claim to have ever watched the evidence you have ever been provided. I highly encourage you to read our churches blog written by our various pastors each day. They almost daily include scriptural support. But you probably dismiss that as well and don't read it. We do provide you evidence/support/beliefs, its just not always in the method you desire. But I do the best we know how. A person can have all the head knowledge of the Bible they want to and know it by memory, but God looks at the heart. Many people will miss heaven by these 18 inches (head to heart). I think many people are judging lifechurch by the head, not the heart. For a member of 9 years, I know the heart of myself, and my church leadership.

Here is one scripture for you, Acts 2:42 "42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

Lifechurch.tv regularly practices this "breaking of the bread" with believers and non-belivers. These small groups we call lifegroups and are usually groups of people with alot in common and meet in homes/coffee shops/ etc. on a daily basis and just do life together. I have heard too many stories of people in our lifegroups that have given their own things for those in need, cars, jobs, food, money, house, etc. many giving wrecklessly and freely to meet others needs not only financially, but emotionally, spiritually, etc. , that is why our church doesn't go into debt to build/renovate for a new campus, church plant, etc. And I don't think there is any question that the Lord adds to our numbers daily. Not just people who are "church shopping" but new believers. We have hundreds get saved weekend. That sure sounds pretty Acts 2 to me.

[Martin]

where to start? just because i've gone through lifechurch material and still lack answers to some questions and disagree with some conclusions, metro would believe that i haven't looked. metro's short memory forgets that i sat through a video he chose and i came back here and discussed the strong and weak points of it. besides that, these sermons don't exactly go into detail as to what lifechurch doctrine is... they address a religious viewpoint on specific issues. i also realize that the church has a blog and have not only read it, i've posted on it a couple times. my questions don't come from a lack of examining lifechurch materials.

the issue has nothing to do with receiving answers in a method i (or anyone else) desires. while i've found some answers on the site, i find it interesting that the lifechurch supporters here continue to point me there for the answers. that's fine to a point, but can't why can't people answer for themselves in their own words? do they even know what they believe and who they are affiliated with... or do they just let the church think and interpret scripture for them?

while i conceded some of my concerns about communion with the evidence given to me, there are other questions (like salvation) that are simply left unanswered. i'm not pointing fingers at any individual, but not one lifechurch supporter here can refute the scriptural evidence made here that appears to contradict their doctrine. the best any of you knows how is to point somebody to a website or blog or a video sermon? it concerns me when a group of people appear to have such little knowledge of the scriptures that they can't use them to support their beliefs.

why shouldn't people judge lifechurch by the head? when paul approached the bereans, they judged his message by the head and not the heart. they searched the scriptures to make sure that what he was claiming was true... they didn't just 'feel' that he was right with their hearts and decide to go along wit his claims.

just because it's claimed that lifechurch practices communion and its members practice charity is irrelevent to any discussion about lifechurch doctrine. those are good things, but that has no relation to the way lifechurch interprets scripture. people do good works every day without ever believing in god. besides that, it's been shown in this very thread (and not refuted) that some of lifechurch's doctrine contradicts parts of acts 2.

-M