What are the Victory Church's teachings?

StaticNoise

I'd love to get a serious, simple answers please.

I've seen the Victory Church, and it's relatively near by to me. Personally, I'm looking into it and what they teach.

How are they different from Roman Catholicism? What clashes are there, if any? How do they approach those who go to service/mass and what differs? What changes are there in the service from the regular mass I'm used to? And, with serious, constructive observation- what should I keep my eye out for?

I've noticed a lot of criticism, in terms of their praise of the facilities and the building from members, but I'd like to find out what their actual religious, spiritual teachings are- what bible they use, what they do and don't believe in, etc., as the website doesn't, from what I see, give the kind of answers I am looking for. Plus, I would like to know more from other regular people before I go over asking about the religious aspect of things. I'm sure you understand what I mean.

I look forward to your answers and replies. Hopefully we can just have a mature, well-written chat about them, rather than having a heated or overly critical (without reason) debate.

Cheers,
SN.

Fanny Cradock

It's difficult to say where they stand on the contentious moral and theological points, but their "about us" page suggest they are fairly orthodox in their views. I'm guessing they are an Evangelical denomination.

StaticNoise

Are we talking very different from Roman Catholic? Are they extremists, per se: for example, very strong views like those on God Channel/EWTN etc.?

antiskeptic

StaticNoise wrote: »

Are we talking very different from Roman Catholic? Are they extremists, per se: for example, very strong views like those on God Channel/EWTN etc.?

Fanny's "orthodox" probably means 'conforming to bible-based Christianity'. That's what I'd glean from their about us page. They would be worlds apart from Roman Catholicism in that case. They say that:

- water baptism identifies a person with Christ. There is no RC supernatural rebirth attached to it.

- communion is a rememberance event. There is no RC supernatural presence of Christ attached to it.

- they teach from the word of God exclusively. Utterly contra RC (who curiously seek to limit the homily to the minimum possible ... and carry out the Mass in an incomprehensible language)

I don't get a God-channel sense from them. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence however. You'd have to poke around a bit yourself.

Marcus.Aurelius

antiskeptic wrote: »

- communion is a rememberance event. There is no RC supernatural presence of Christ attached to it.

I don't usually post here, but this caught my eye. Couldn't the same be said of most evangelical/pentecostal churches?

Fanny Cradock

Assuming this is an evangelical denomination - and we would really need to confirm that - then, yes, there would be some fairly distinct differences over RCism.

In terms of liturgy, Evangelicals, at least in my experience, seem largely not to bother with it. Worship is more of a free form affair. Tradition doesn't play as central role as in other denominations. This style suits some but not others.

In terms of doctrinal beliefs - evangelicals, along with Protestant denominations, Pentecostal etc. don't pray to the saints, don't subscribe to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, or to transubstantiation, or that the Pope is infallible. There are other things, of course, but these spring to mind as the most significant.

All in all, if you do head along, I suspect that it will be interesting if you've only been exposed to one form of worship. You might love it! You might not. But you probably have to first experience it.

An alternative suggestion for a venue would be Trinity Church, which is actually a network of 3 congregations dotted throughout the city. It's very much a Christ centred church, and there is a nice mix of people within the congregation. They are also really keen on doing community outreach (practising what they preach) and they have run some really interesting courses that dealt with philosophy, science, and various moral issues.

Whereas I can't vouch for Victory Church, Trinity might be a consideration for you. Still, finding the right church can be tricky! Happy hunting

P.S. If you do head along to Victory Church it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

homer911

I personally dont like the idea of mega-churches, but that aside, even in protestant/evangelical circles some of their views/teachings have been treated as dodgy or suspect - I'm afraid I dont have any details on this though - will have to do some research...

Splendour

From another thread: my thoughts on Victory Church...

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61984468#post61984468

Fanny Cradock

Possibly one to avoid! Thanks Splendour.

antiskeptic

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Possibly one to avoid! Thanks Splendour.

Indeed. Snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory as it were.

antiskeptic

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

I don't usually post here, but this caught my eye. Couldn't the same be said of most evangelical/pentecostal churches?

That there is no supernatural element to the communion aspect of the service? Indeed. In those too it is a rememberance service.

I was trying to draw out that distinction: between Victory (and evangelicalism/pentecostalism) and the RCC

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

That there is no supernatural element to the communion aspect of the service? Indeed. In those too it is a rememberance service.

I was trying to draw out that distinction: between Victory (and evangelicalism/pentecostalism) and the RCC

Not actually correct.

Many Pentecostals see a very large supernatural element to the celebration of communion, expecting that people may be physically healed while they are partaking.

Where they differ from the RCC is that they don't believe that the bread and wine is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

Victory Church, btw, would hold to a largely evangelical set of doctrines with the following distinctives.
a) They would, like Pentecostals, believe that miraculous gifts of the Spirit (prophecy, speaking in tongues, healing etc) are still available to Christians today.

b) They would, unlike the more mainline Pentecostal denominations, place a great emphasis on physical health and financial prosperity as being a sign of God's favour.

Victory are part of what is known as the Health and Wealth movement, or Prosperity Gospel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Victory are part of what is known as the Health and Wealth movement, or Prosperity Gospel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

I think that the whole Prosperity Gospel has to be one of the more regrettable interpretations of the message of the Gospel. I can't help but think that in reinterpreting the message they have not only missed the point but have also created a theology that could be damaging.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

santing

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

... but have also created a theology that could be damaging.

I think you are wrong here. That "is very damaging" would be my interpretation. One of the reasons I won't call myself an Evangelical.

Fanny Cradock

Sorry, I don't follow

neuro-praxis

I think santing is complaining that you haven't made your argument with enough hyperbole for his taste!

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sorry, I don't follow

I think your diplomatic language came across as a bit 'luke warm'. As in, it IS damaging, rather than COULD be damaging. At least thats how I interpreted Santings objection.

Fanny Cradock

I get ya!