Incoherence as an invisible evil

We are constantly tempted for our sins. By our own capacity, we can not fight it, so much that we are charged not to fight it, but to escape. Then, would the sin be greater than all of God's creations, including his present essence through the Holy Spirit? This debate is more complex than I want to illustrate here. It serves only as a spark of a closer subject: the incoherence in the Christian milieu.

Perhaps I did not have to resort to the sacred texts to justify the Trinity. In fact, the Bible is full of passages, from Genesis to Revelation, which give us certainty of this concept, even though the name itself is not there graphically (as the term "Bible" is not found in the Bible). In this way, any so-called Christian institution that does not share this opinion will be considered a sect, since this concept is paramount to the kind of faith we share. I can list here, of course, Judaism and Islam, a denomination that has difficulty accepting this complex concept - a complexity that is really difficult for us to understand, which carries one of the most fascinating motives of the fear of the Christian God: the church Jehovah's Witnesses. Although, for other reasons, it is considered a sect (a configuration that may simply mean its practice of preaching a single correct way to salvation over other interpretations), it does not believe in the Trinitarian concept. This means that even if they practice good works and evangelize according to what Jesus told us, the lack of belief in the Trinity becomes a fundamental characteristic of this sect, influencing its evident sectarianism. It is consecrated, therefore and especially, I would say, disbelief in the Trinity by Jehovah's Witnesses. Well, what say, then, when a part of your body again disagrees with that? Despite believing in the Trinity, perhaps through a proper interpretation of the biblical originals, he still seeks to spread this among his fellow believers and share this thought as if it were inherently in that church at one time, or else criticize the " hypocrisy of founding fathers ". Why, I should be happy on the one hand. He now not only believes in the Trinity, but also wants others to know. However, he is being at least dishonest in staying there or even attempting to insert an additional theological line incongruously. If he understood a little of the breadth of Christianity, he would know that any denomination arises or branches out according to a theological difference which, in most cases, flows in a single direction. Hardly a theological difference from the Traditional Orthodox Church with another difference from a Traditional Pentecostal Church will result exactly in the theological line of a Traditional Lutheran Church. It will have a name, at least, curious, but theologically different.

From this illustration, I draw some conclusions:

1) I do not think it is right to minimize a situation by summarizing the classic "the uncomfortable ones who retire". In fact, there is no perfect church, although it sounds crazy to certain ears. I recall in a timely manner here the Apostles' creed, which deals with the Universal Church (not specifically that of Bishop Macedo, of course);

2) The fact of the discovery seems to leave the person uneasy with the environment in which it is. There is an understanding that the early church possessed more of the essence of Christianity than we can find today; some people interpret this in relation to customs (such as dressing, behaving, etc.). But that's not the point. What is sought, in fact, was what faith provoked in people at a time when there were no churches, as they behaved before the deification of tyrants. The early churches had problems and many doubts, as we can see, for example, in Paul's letters. Several doubts or questions, which also generated other aspects, such as docetism, circumcision, the practice or not of the Mosaic Law, etc. All of them, however, were simply answered by the Gospel of Christ.

3) We should avoid, at all costs, to found a new church. If we are bothering doctrinally with our congregation, and this nuisance is with something that we deem essential faith, let's look for another church that understands it this way. This is not a facilitating advice for church-to-church mobility, of course. This decision is very important. When there is no alternative and when the prayers seem to indicate this path, it will be the decision to be made. It would be worse if the individual decided to create a church because he did not like church hours. This would make room for the Catholic Pentecostal Lutheran Confession Church or the Holy Trinity Jewish Mosque on the 7th day.

4) I just thought this was one of the main reasons for the growth of the "unlearned" phenomenon. Besides Caio Fábio*, of course.

I believe that there will be saved in any church who profess the basic elements of Christianity. We should not trouble our hearts with these details. We must be consistent with what we choose, be mature to make decisions (and preferably, I repeat, do not merge new denominational acronyms). And to persevere, knowing that to God, whence comes wealth and honor, it is he who rules all things.


*Brazilian pastor known for influencing Christians to stop attending churches.