|
Post by Josh on Dec 26, 2007 8:49:25 GMT -8
So, other than the Trinity, I'm curious what other items in the statement of faith presented here might be questioned in regard to "essential status".
The funny thing is that when we hammered it out, I felt I was specifically adding in a lot of "breathing room".
For instance, there's considerable 'wiggle' room on issues such as eschatology (futurist, preterist, etc..), one's view on hell (nothing said about eternal conscious torment vs. annihiliation, though it does preclude universalism*), and one's view on inspiration of the Scriptures. A lot of that came out of my own personal experience with how unnecessarily divisive those issues can be.
There are some things in there that are a bit controversial, though, I'd imagine. For instance, we did include a phrase that strongly supports "inherited sin". That's coming bown pretty strongly on one side of a historical argument (though on the predominant side)
Anyway, all this to say, as I started off with:
I submit this list humbly. Nothing here is off limits for dialogue. Too often doctrinal statements become just that: discussion killers. If anyone is interesting in discussing why something here should (or shouldn’t) be considered an essential Christian doctrine, I would love to respectfully engage in conversation about that, so please post replies!
*I'm curious on your thoughts on those who take this stance, christopher. I just can't see any good warrant for it, except a massively huge leap of logic from what I can tell is one verse. But I haven't studied it much.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 26, 2007 13:10:00 GMT -8
Hi Josh, I’ll answer this one first, and come back to the rest later. This topic is probably worthy of its own thread actually. Until fairly recently, I had pretty much the same opinion that you’ve expressed here. I didn’t see Universal Reconciliation as a tenable view at all. In fact, because of the rhetoric I’d been fed by those who adamantly oppose it, I once viewed the idea as a direct affront to the cross of Christ and a dangerous heresy. I figured those who held this view were basing their view more on wishful thinking and emotions rather than biblical exegesis and were therefore pretty much self-deceived. But since then, I made some friends that hold the view of Universal Reconciliation (not to be confused with Unitarianism) and it caused me to want to try and understand it a little more. I also learned that many respectable Christians throughout history have held this view, including some well known church fathers. Of the 6 major Christian education centers in the early church, 4 of them taught Universal Reconciliation, 1 taught Conditional Immortality, 1 taught Eternal Torment. There is much discussion (sometimes very heated) on the TNP forum about this topic, but it’s very fragmented and sometimes hard to extract the sound arguments from the emotional rhetoric on both sides of the issue. I’ve recently read a book that a friend loaned me entitled “The Inescapable Love of God” by Thomas Talbott that, I have to confess, has significantly softened my position against the Christian Universal Reconciliation view and indeed, I even found myself hoping that it may be true (uh-oh, there goes that wishful thinking emotional thing). How glorious would it be if God was able to eventually reconcile back to Himself all that He loves (i.e. everyone)? I began the book very skeptical that it would change my opinion of UR even in the slightest. However, I must admit that Talbott laid out a very impressive case from both scripture and logic that I could find little fault with (and being a skeptic by nature, I usually consider myself a pretty critical thinker). He does so without diminishing the cross, the gospel, or the severity of judgment at all. In fact, I think the view he espouses may be a higher view of the victory of the cross and suggests that God loses nothing in the end (as opposed to those He would lose from the other two views). For anyone wanting to gain an honest and fair understanding of the UR view (without simply relying on the rhetoric of its detractors as I once did), I would strongly recommend reading this book. On the other hand, applying the principle of Prov 18:17, I will also be seeking a point by point refutation on Talbott’s book to balance out the argument and apply a fair examination of the evidence. Anyway, I remain, for the most part, agnostic on the 3 views of hell , mainly because I have not been able find any open and shut case that seems to coherently take all the scriptural data into account (to my satisfaction anyways). As Talbott concedes in his book, no matter which view you take, you need try to make sense of many verses that seem to support the opposite views on the surface. I guess that’s why there’s 3 views. All that to say, I agree with your statement of faith presenting it as a final judgment. None of the views disagree with that very clear teaching of scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 26, 2007 20:27:30 GMT -8
Very interesting. Sounds similar to my experience analyzing "eventual annihiliation". So, this thread is tricky because it beckons all kinds of cool discussion on divergent topics. Maybe we can use it as a link to further discussions. There's a sub-forum on the subject of hell already. I think what you just posted deserves a fresh thread there. Could you re-post it there in addition to here? There are already a couple threads on somewhat similiar lines where "Hume" brought up some points similar to the ones you stated here, but it's kinda long and we didn't get into "universal salvation" too much. A fresh thread would be good. Follow-up: Here's a link to a separate thread on Universal Reconciliation
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 26, 2007 21:30:36 GMT -8
So, in regard to the consequences of rejecting the Trinity, I'll take a stab here:
Misunderstanding about what Scripture says about the nature of God is serious because it often serves as a fountainhead for a multitude of related errors.
A great example is Mormonism. Early on, one fundamental aspect of orthodox belief about the nature of God was abandoned: the belief that there is only one God (monotheism). Mormons tbegan teaching that Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father are separate deities (Tri-theism) From there, it was only a slight leap to the conclusion that there might be other deities as well. And from there it was a quick jump to the idea that all humans have the potential to become gods, and that all gods were once humans, as we are.
All of the sudden you have a belief system which doesn't look at all like Christianity.
Likewise, Jehovah's Witnesses took another route. They affirmed monotheism but refused to see Jesus as God in the Flesh (being apparently unable to appreciate paradox). So, they came to teach that Jesus is merely the greatest of the angels.
The problem I see with denying the Deity of Christ is that one is no longer left with a God who stepped into our shoes, a God who lived among us, bled, suffered, died, and took our sins upon Himself. If "angels long to look into" the workings of salvation, how can we expect a mere angel to be our savior? It is not an angel that was peired, but God the Father says in Zechariah 12:10, "They will look upon ME, the one they have peirced".
This belief that Jesus was not God lead them to other heresies, such as a denial of the physical resurrection of Jesus (for God cannot have a permanent body, in their opinion).
Lastly, both of these groups, in going against 2,000 years of orthodox Christian belief, had to have an explanation for why God would allow most of the Christian world to be in the dark regarding it's most central beliefs. Thus, they had to vilify Christendom in general- placing the blame on the Christians themselves for rejecting the truth. This lead directly to their insular, judgmental, and, in short order, brainwashing policies.
So, I think it's reasonable that one could establish a link between a misunderstanding about the nature of God all the way to brainwashing cult behavior. All the ingredients are there, just throw in a dynamic personality.
What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 26, 2007 23:08:42 GMT -8
Hi Josh, So many points to answer....So little time. It's getting kind of hard to keep up I agree with your assessment of the LDS, that it doesn't even resemble Christianity. However, do you really think there is a causal relationship between what they believe and a misunderstanding of the Trinity? It's pretty widely known that Joseph Smith was a scoundrel, an opportunist, and a deceiver from the beginning. I think he knew that if he could start a new religion he could gain great wealth and create his own morality. I personally doubt that it was a misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine led him to the strange beliefs the Mormons now hold. I'm not quite sure about Charles T. Russell. Maybe he really did sincerely believe what he taught in the early days of the JW's (I'll have to dust off my Kingdom of the cults book ). But I do know that he eventually became deceptive, especially when it came to translating the New World Translation. The lexographer for the organization admitted under oath he didn't know greek. So, my assessment would be that neither of the founders of these movements sincerely "called on the name of the Lord with a pure heart". And that is what led them into their cultic ways IMO. you wrote: Um, isn't that exactly what happened in the dark ages? Isn't that what the Reformation was all about? Those we would consider real Christians in those types (Paulitians, Albagenses, Waldenses, etc) were considered the heretical cults, and the oppressive and tyrannical RCC was known by all the world to be the only true church....by threat of intradict no less. Non-sequitur IMO my friend. I don't believe the case can be made with those two examples for the reasons I listed. The most common response I get when I ask this question is that if you don't believe in the Trinity, then you don't believe in a God that even exists. And if you don't believe in the God who exists, He can't save you. Again, that is non-sequitur for the fact that Jesus made no such requirement. He simply says: Matt 11:28-30 28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." NKJVAnyway, baby's cryin'...gotta go now. Lovin' the discussion bro.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 26, 2007 23:15:58 GMT -8
Hi Josh, Well, the kids are in bed and I’m up for awhile on baby duty (unless he gets hungry of course, nothing I can do about that). So, I finally have time for another response. I think I may need to clarify a few different points I made here. First I’ll take the part about essentials, then I’ll address the sound doctrine part in another post…OK? You wrote: Yes, I agree there is much more to scripture that is “essential” for the Christian life. In fact, all of the commands of Jesus and the apostles are essential (Matt 28:20, Luke 6:46). But just a point of clarification, the list I gave is not to be taken as an exhaustive “statement of faith” per se, this list is about what I think the scripture reveals about what one must believe in order to be a Christian (i.e. the essential beliefs). If I believe all these things about Jesus (especially His Lordship), then the rest automatically follows. It’s incumbent upon me (and every other follower of Jesus) to search the rest of scripture and find out what it is my King requires of me. Now, my personal “statement of faith” would simply be something like: “Jesus is Lord, and I know this because God raised Him from the dead” (Rom 10:9) Out of that flows all sorts of things I believe (including the Trinity) because I believe the authority of scripture. If I was to extend my personal “statement of faith” to include others in some sort of Christian organization, it would depend on what the purpose and mission of the organization was. If I was simply wanting to organize a community of believers to share life and community together (i.e. church), I think I would simply say something like: “We believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible and are committed to submit to the authority of His words and those of His chosen apostles.” I think that one statement says all that needs to be said because it implies that whatever the scripture reveals to be true, is authoritatively true. Listing doctrines about the nature of God, the atonement, the fallen nature of man, etc. etc. is completely unnecessary, and indeed counterproductive to a unified universal church IMO because everyone is working that all out and we’re all at different places in that process. Paul said: 2 Tim 2:22-24 but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. 23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. NKJV I take that to mean that if someone is sincerely submitted to the Lordship of Jesus (regardless of the sophistication of their understanding on mysterious matters), I’m to pursue community with them. But again, that’s just me. The example you gave in Galatians is included in the items on my short little list because one of the things you must believe is that Jesus is Lord. That is the gospel. The Judaizers were preaching a different gospel because they were ignoring the fact that Jesus is the fulfillment of all the law they were trying to obey (and trying to get the ‘foolish’ Galatians to obey as well). In other words, they were making the law their Lord and not Jesus…worshipping the types and shadows rather than the substance (Col 2:16-17). Of course Paul had to adamantly oppose it. It was completely contrary to the cross. I don’t think there’s anything abstract about that. you wrote: I’m usually pretty cautious about accepting your first statement there. Outside of scripture (#3) how do we know what the Holy Spirit has guided the church to “believe” throughout history? Where do you draw the line? The line seems pretty fuzzy to me (hence the battle between RCC and Protestantism) and many claim that their beliefs are from the Holy Spirit, yet they contradict each other. Well, I’m certainly in favor of discipleship, starting with the framework (milk), and working into the meat. I’m just not sure that a “statement of faith” is the right tool for that. Again, I think it’s just a matter of different perspectives. To me, statements of faith are kind of like mission statements that communicate something about the community presenting it. I like to encourage those making them to seriously consider whether there’s unnecessary exclusivity built into them. I had a pastor that once said from the pulpit: “If someone does not believe the Trinity, they are not a Christian and there can be no fellowship with them” I’m just not in agreement with that way of thinking. All who call on the name of the Lord “with a pure heart” are my brethren as far as I’m concerned. The Holy Spirit is able eventually guide us in all truth. Anyway, believe it or not, this has taken me about 3 hours to write (baby Zach is very fussy tonight so I’ve had to stop several times) so I’m not sure if I’ll get to the next point tonight or not. I wouldn’t trade it for the world though. This little guy is so precious. ;D Take care, and Lord bless.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 27, 2007 0:35:17 GMT -8
No, I certainly don't see Christian history that way, as if from Constantine to Luther there was an almost wholesale falling away of true Christianity, excepting certain small fringe groups. I have a much more positive view of Roman Catholicism than that. From Chrystostom to Francis of Assisi to Thomas Aquinas (and the list goes on), Christianity was very much alive throughout it's history, despite dark periods. That said, I have a profound respect for the Reformers and believe most of their reforms were necessary-- especially in the late middlge ages. As to a chain of causality in Mormonism between denial of the Trinity on down to brainwashing, I'm not saying that it had to develop that way, just that one could make a tenable case that one led step led to the next, ect.. And I totally agree with you in regard to Joseph Smith. I believe he was a charlatan, so whatever he did was most likely motivated not by theology but by personal ambition. Nonetheless, he needed a pretext upon which to change his theology step by step, and jettisoning the Trinity was a great pretext. By getting folks to swallow that, it was much easier to move on to even worse notions. Still, I'm only half convinced of this anyway... In regard to the other stuff (what role, if any, statements of faith should have in the life of the Church), I'm hearing you and giving it a lot of thought.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 27, 2007 20:32:17 GMT -8
Hi Josh, Well, I wasn’t able to get back to this last night. Baby Zach’s been having a tough time at night (mom and dad too). And today was pretty busy also. But here (finally) is the response I promised to this portion of this post: You wrote: Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by my statement. I certainly didn’t mean Paul and the apostles never taught other doctrine, but rather when the Paul referred to the need for shepherds defending of “sound doctrine” (as you put forth earlier), he’s always speaking of obedience to the Lordship of Jesus as far as I can tell (i.e. godly behavior). Here are some examples of what I mean: 2 Tim 3:10-4:5 10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance, 11 persecutions, afflictions, [/u]which happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra--what persecutions I endured. And out of them all the Lord delivered me. 12 Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. 13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith [/u]which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, [/u] for reproof, [/u] for correction, [/u] for instruction in righteousness[/u], 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. [/u] [/i] Continuing this thought, Paul says… 2 Timothy 4
4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [/u] because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. 5 But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. NKJV Titus 2:1-10 2:1 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: [/u] 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; [/u] 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-- 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, [/u] that the word of God may not be blasphemed. 6 Likewise exhort the young men to be sober-minded[/u], 7 in all things showing yourself to be a pattern of good works; [/u] in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility, 8 sound speech that cannot be condemned[/u], that one who is an opponent may be ashamed, having nothing evil to say of you. 9 Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things. NKJV 1 Tim 6:3-5 3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine[/u] which accords with godliness, [/u] 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. NKJV 1 Tim 4:6-8 6 If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine[/u] which you have carefully followed. 7 But reject profane and old wives' fables, and exercise yourself toward godliness. [/u] 8 For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness[/u] is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come. NKJV Rom 6:17 17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed [/u]from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. [/u] NKJV[/i] Part of the confusion is that when we use the word “doctrine”, we typically pour a meaning into that word that includes all kinds of systematic theology (including many abstract things). But the word for “doctrine” in the bible simply means “teaching”. I hold that what was taught by the elders of the church, primarily, were the things that lead to obedience to the King’s bidding and not so much the mysterious nature of God, heaven/hell, etc. In other words, the main concern was obedience to Christ. Now, I would say that in the examples you listed, it could hardly be considered “abstract” doctrine on the same level as things like the Trinity, or the deity of Christ since what was at stake in those passages was the very gospel itself (Gal 1:9). To me, there’s nothing abstract about it. It’s about as concrete as you can get and he had no choice to vehemently speak out against the Judaizers because what they put forth, in essence, was an affront and to the cross of Christ. This is the very core of Christianity (1Cor 2:2), and is non-negotiable. In Hebrews, the author (and just between you and me, I think it was Paul or one of his close companions) is writing to a people (Jewish Christians) who are at risk of apostasy under the duress of persecution from, again, the Jews who reject Jesus as Messiah. In both cases, what’s at stake there is a turning away from the cross, and back to the “weak and beggarly elements” of the Old Covenant (Gal 4:9). You wrote: Well, I certainly can’t argue with Paul. I think Paul in this statement is simply telling Timothy to “practice what he preaches”, which would only strengthen my opinion of what was primarily taught from the pulpit (commands of Jesus more than abstract theology). Hypocrisy of spiritual leaders is probably one of the biggest things that shipwreck peoples’ faith IMO. However, I can’t think of a single behavioral characteristic that flows out of a correct understanding of the Trinity or the dual nature of Christ, etc. I guess there might be something, I just don’t know yet what that might be. Anyway, I’m sure you have additional thoughts on this and maybe you’ve thought of something I haven’t. Lord bless.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 27, 2007 21:56:08 GMT -8
Hi Josh, You wrote: I guess I have a much dimmer view of the RCC than you do. I think the RCC (as an institution) became the embodiment of apostasy and blasphemy and I actually agree with the Reformers that the papacy and the RCC (as an institution) is to be identified as the “man of sin” in 2Thess and the “little horn” in Daniel 7. That is not to say, however, that all Roman Catholics are evil, far from it. The people you listed (any many many more) are no doubt very godly people. I hold to the remnant theory on that. Like the apostate nation of Israel in Jesus’ day, the majority of leadership were involved in nothing that resembled serving God at all, but rather a self-serving politico/religious stronghold of power that was used to “Lord it over” the people. But there was always a faithful remnant. It can hardly be denied that the RCC has a very checkered history. 1. An estimated 50,000,000 Christian “heretics” murdered at the hands of the RCC. 2. Much like Islam, Augustine promoted use of the sword to “compel” non-believers to convert. 3. Popes that claimed they were “God on earth” (BTW, you have these quotes in your Revelation: Four views book) 4. Popes that were killed in the act of adultery by jealous husbands. 5. The threat of interdict (withholding of the Eucharist, thought by Catholics to be required to sustain salvation) to influence and control entire kingdoms. 6. Even recently Pope Benedict declared that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church (are we reversing Vatican II now?) The list could go on and on. I think there was definitely a departure of the pure faith by the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. I think the Reformers were greatly influenced and conditioned by this evil paradigm as well. While the Catholics burned anti-paedobaptists, the Reformers would drown them. If there is a causal line to be drawn somewhere, how about the line from exclusivism to murderous persecution brought on by the institution of official church “doctrines”? Heresy was considered more grievous than murder in the middle-ages because in the minds of the doctrinal watchdogs, heretics (like non-Trinitarians and Anabaptists) led people astray to “eternal damnation in fiery flames”. Case in point: You probably know about the famous persecution of Spanish theologian Miguel Servetus by the “Christian” authorities of Geneva (with enthusiastic approval from none other than John Calvin himself) for his non-Trinitarian and anti-paedobaptist doctrines. Where do they get the idea that this is justifiable Christian behavior? Here is a quote from Urbanus Rhegius (an associate of Martin Luther) justifying the persecution of Anabaptists: “When heresy breaks forth…then the magistrate must punish not with less but with greater vigor than is employed against other evil-doers, robbers, murderers, thieves, and the like….The Donatists murder men’s souls, make them go to eternal death; and then they complain when men punish them with temporal death….All who know history will know what has been done in this matter by such men as Constantine, Marianus, Theodosius, Charlemagne, and others”(This mindset is actually another strike against the doctrine of eternal torment in my opinion, but that’s another topic altogether.) Now, I feel like I should temper what I’m saying here with a little humility. I cannot honestly say that I would not have acted the same as these men did if I were in their shoes living in their time. Only God knows what evil each of us is capable of in certain circumstances and it’s very possible that given the mindset, the political pressures, and the culture of the time, they acted in a way that seemed right to them. I don’t know and I’ll leave God to be the judge of that. But my point is that ideas do indeed have consequences…sometimes very grave consequences. The face of evil is not human, but evil ideology. Evil ideology creates evil men and invites evil behavior. It reminds me of what Jesus told the Pharisees: Matt 23:14-16 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. NKJVAnyway, sorry about the rant. But I do see the institution of the RCC as a serious blemish on the bride of Christ, and a gross misrepresentation of God’s love toward the lost world He’s seeking to redeem. Not that there isn’t genuine saints in the Catholic Church, there are. And not that the Catholic Church hasn’t made significant contributions of mercy to mankind and to the progress of the gospel, it has. But I think it may be that the good that has been done by the RCC has been an act of God’s grace despite a fatally flawed and apostate organization. Wow, I think we hit on yet another rabbit trail on this thread. Where does it end?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 27, 2007 23:02:08 GMT -8
You make a great point about the link between teaching (doctrine) and behavior. In fact, I can putting together a whole teaching or sermon on just that. Nice demonstration. And, as I said, really, I'm leary (despite being guilty of it) of encouraging a false dichotomy between belief and behavior anyway. To the Christian, the most important beliefs are those that propel us toward the imitation of Christ. I did, however, (somewhere in one of these discussions )think I gave some good arguments how belief in the deity of Christ does have practical import in how we live out our faith- does the God of the universe know what it's like to be human? Was He tempted in all points as we are? Did He suffer for us? Or did a mere intermediary? Those questions have practical applications to how we live out our faith, I believe. If not the least of them is how I choose to respond to the problem of suffering. One of the best responses to the problem of pain is not that we can know why evil things happen to people in every instance, it is to know that we don't suffer anything that God Himself has not suffered as well. Regarding Roman Catholicism, of course you can roll out a list of travesties a mile long-- and I would disagree with very few of your points. But the thing about RCC is that you can't address it as a monolithic, static entity. Whatever you or anyone pictures when they say Roman Catholic is not really what the RCC was at any given time. The RCC church in the early centuries was a much different animal that in the middle ages, and certainly much different than today. I love Augustine, though can still cringe at some things he believed or espoused. I totally dig Gregory the Great, yet recognize how he unwittingly shifted some things down a wrong track. But I feel that way about most Christian leaders from all streams of Christian expression. But, yeah, that's a huge conversation. Pop by the Roman Catholicism sub-forum on the IC Forum Topics for more if you want (rants and raves)
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 28, 2007 8:48:05 GMT -8
Hi Josh, I agree, that is a very good point you made about God suffering as one of us. I take great comfort in that personally when I'm enduring various trials and temptations and it gives me strength to endure it. Thanks for bringing that up. As far as the RCC goes, I think it's fatal flaw is that it (as a monolithic entity) unashamedly holds tradition (i.e. doctrines and policy of the church) as being equally authoritative as the scriptures. When the pope speaks "Ex Cathedra", it is as if God Himself spoke it in their minds. Because of this, I think they are much like the Mormons whose presiding president is the current "prophet" of God and therefore his words are scripture basically. The problem is that it's very hard to undo because you have to either admit that the pope was fallible, or that God changed His mind. A very dangerous and tangled web it is. I could go on and on, but I won't. I have no problem with tabling this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 25, 2008 9:02:01 GMT -8
Chris,
At some point, maybe when the new update of proboards comes, I'd like to transfer or copy some of this discussion about RCC to the RCC folder on the General Topics sub-forum. Good stuff here.
Anyway, in regard to "essential Christian beliefs", you probably noticed that I posted a follow up to Steve Gregg on the question I asked the other night. I appreciated his answer.
I read the article he linked to that he had written previously. He was responding to someone's question about a statement of faith.
I was a bit surprised by this part of his response, thinking that Steve would generally be against writing up a statement of faith:
So, the Trinity would be a non-negotiable for him in what context? A local church context? A church leadership context? Certainly not on a personal context?
And doesn't there seem to be a bit of a tension between "fellowship with me today" and "if these things resonate with you.... let's fellowship together in Christ"? I assume the difference is in which context the fellowship is occuring? Maybe the difference is on a personal level vs. in a local church environment?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 25, 2008 20:02:04 GMT -8
Hey Josh, There have been a few places on the TNP forum where this issue has come up. There have been a few minor variations in Steve's answers if I recall right, but mostly consistent with what he wrote to you in his response to your question. I believe what Steve might be saying when he says "non-negotiable" is that he has settled on these issues and doesn't really see a need to debate them. But I don't know, you'd have to ask him what he means by that. I know him not to be at all interested in church leadership, so that can't be it. For myself though, I won't say "non-negotiable" to anything that isn't absolutely clear in scripture. If someone can honestly see the same data differently than I do, then I'm not going to label it "main and plain". Anyway, I'd like to say more, but I gotta go now. I wish I had more time to respond to some of these things, but the clock has been a tyrant lately . Hoping to pick up some of this stuff again soon. We had a great time Saturday, glad you enjoyed the meeting. Lord bless.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 21, 2008 20:04:45 GMT -8
Chris/ Robin,
From what I've heard and read on those you know who have divergent views on the subject of the Trinity, it sounds like one of the big sticking points in the issue of "essence/ personhood".
So, how would those folks, as far as you know, respond to a statement more like this:
We believe that: there is only one God, and that Scripture identifies the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as that one God.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 22, 2008 9:00:42 GMT -8
Honestly, for me, I'm comfortable just saying: "I believe in the one true God revealed in the Holy Scriptures"I'm still not certain why it's important to flesh out the particulars of how that revelation is formulated. I can see people still having problems with the statement you gave. For example: 1. Was the 2nd person of the Trinity (the logos) always referred to as "the Son"? Or did He become the Son after the incarnation? The bible is not clear on that and even many Trinitarians (like myself) believe it's the latter.
2. I know some who see the Holy Spirit as the manifestation of both the Father and Jesus together. (I think we discussed that at some point). I don't see it that way, but it's easy for me to see why some do. Anyway, it's not that big of thing for me. Since I am a Trinitarian, I can go either way.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 22, 2008 9:08:14 GMT -8
It seems to me that there would be room in the above statement even for the exceptions you gave. It doesn't state when Jesus became the Son, and it doesn't specify how the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are God, just that they are.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Apr 22, 2008 12:03:28 GMT -8
True, true. After looking at it again in light of your last comment, I can see what you mean now. I guess it just has a very trinitarian look and feel to it at first glance because there are other manifestations of that one God in the bible (i.e. pillar of smoke/fire, Ezekiels wheel, Angel of the Lord, Melchizedek, etc) that are not listed there. All and all, I think it's a fair statement and easily deduced from scripture.
|
|