|
Post by christopher on Feb 4, 2012 22:29:16 GMT -8
Wow, it's kind of a freaky time warp to go back and read some of these old threads we used to have.
|
|
shirley
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by shirley on Feb 11, 2012 0:04:16 GMT -8
It is eerie to “hear” conversations from the past that I was not privy to when they occurred. I feel like I'm eavesdropping sometimes when I read forum posts from 2007. I noticed that Aletheia's Doctrinal Statement as proposed here is not posted on the website – or maybe I just can't find it? But anyway, I have read through this whole thread and do have some thoughts. I do agree that it is important for Christians to define an Essential Doctrine. Because as Josh said: Well, I think it is true that ideas have consequences. as Chris said: But my point is that ideas do indeed have consequences…sometimes very grave consequences. as I said, elsewhere: This intrinsic union has some other psychological downfalls to the Christian who believes it, /quote] a.k.a. An idea having a consequence. I think it is important for Christian leaders to be able to identify, share, support, and defend these essential points of doctrine. But I don't think we should exclude people from fellowship for not being convinced of or knowledgeable about these Essentials. I know I go to church to learn. (I also don't believe in signing anything ) I think that if I were to write out a doctrinal statement it would for sure include points 1 -7 of the “Aletheia Doctrinal Statement”. 9 and 10 would probably blend together. And 11, well, yeah, I don't have a clue what I believe in that area anymore. Yes I left out 8. This one really bugs me. The Point: Sexuality. While I disagree with the word "official" (I'm pretty sure thats not scriptural), I don't disagree with the principal. But my problem is that it seems out of place since all the rest of the Statement is about theology and this one is about morality. It seems like it is intended to exclude or condemn those who don't uphold or fall short of this “common in our society” sin. Is this moral downfall somehow worse than murder, theft, hate, idolotry? Jesus talked about those things too. Obviously these are all just my thoughts and opinions.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 11, 2012 21:00:58 GMT -8
Hi Shirley,
I don't remember the context of my statement, but I was probably posting it as a reason against statements of faith, not for them.
Because ideas have consequences, we need to be very careful of what we make non-negotiable lest we divide the body of Christ unnecessarily IMO.
I'm still yet to hear a good reason for a community to have a statement of faith. I'm still unsure what the value is and the negative consequences for not having one.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 11, 2012 22:17:01 GMT -8
I think a statement of faith can be helfpul, not as a salvation litmus test, or an an aboslute final list of dogma, but as an outline of the general understanding of what a community (or the leaders of a community) sees as the plain teachings of Scripture. Bascially a thumbnail sketch of some points that the community/ leaders think are worth going to the mat over.
And, by the way, lest "go to the mat" be misunderstood, I don't mean that in a hostile way. Much agreed that we need to season all our interactions with others of different perspectives with grace, humor, and humility. It's just to say, this there are some doctrines (or practices) that will non-negotiable* for said community.
I think the purpose/ intended audience of a statement of faith would be as a thumbnail sketch for interested newcomers, a thumbnail sketch especially for spiritual seekers or new Christians who may not yet have thought a lot about their theology. Sometimes it's nice to simplify complex concepts to begin the process of thinking about them. And lest we reply "but the Bible doesn't simplify itself", remember that Paul enumerated "statements of faith" for just these sort of audiences as well. The most famous one, of course would be:
1 Corinthians 15:1-8 1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
but that's just one of many "let me sum up the most important things" snippets in the New Testament.
And, yes, a statement of faith could be designed to fend off heretical views. That's a potentially dangerous role, depending on what we're labeling as heresies. But, for instance, a statement of faith that emphasises that Jesus rose physically (not merely spiritually) from the dead, or that Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all spoken of as God in the Bible, might be very helpful to the audience I mentioned above without venturing to get too technical about disputable aspects of what the resurrection body is like or the exact nature of the mystery of the Trinity.
*Non-negotiable doesn't mean non-debatable, either. That would mean asking people to turn their brains off.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 11, 2012 22:18:24 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 11, 2012 22:29:47 GMT -8
Regarding number 11, it is specifically worded to allow for a wide variety of theological perspective on eschatology. Notice that it doesn't specify futurism or preterism, and it doesn't broach the subject of what hell is. Rather, it affirms what the Bible clearly affirms:
The Lord’s final return, The resurrection of all the dead, The judgment by Christ of all mankind, The final establishment of the New Heavens and New Earth as the home of those made righteous through Christ. Hell as separation from God (whether temporary or eternal)
Regarding #8, yeah, that one was pretty reactionary, truth be told. Perhaps it needs to be revisited. It's just such an issue in our culture that I wanted to make it clear that Christianity upholds a serious and public commitment to lifelong monogamy as the ideal. The "official" word was meant more in regard to marriage as a sacrament of the church than it was a reference to legal officiality.
It wasn't intended to exclude people, but to let people know that common though noncommital cohabitation is, our community will encourage each other toward a biblical understanding of sexual purity and monogamous commitment. I feel like a lot of churches are ignoring this today.
|
|
shirley
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by shirley on Feb 12, 2012 1:01:27 GMT -8
You're right Chris. It would have been better to have quoted Dec 14th when you simply agreed with Josh that “ideas have consequences”. In the post I cited you were ranting on the RCC. (your words.) . I'm still yet to hear a good reason for a community to have a statement of faith. I'm still unsure what the value is and the negative consequences for not having one. As someone who left a church who had ideas that were different from Aletheia's (for example) Statement of Faith, where some of these ideas were very different from what most Christians believe, and the consequences were detrimental to its members, mentally, emotionally, and even to their lives, I think it is very important for Christians to know what God wants and to stick by it. I don't think what God wants us to believe about him will result in insanity, depression and suicide (Or murder as you pointed out with the RCC). As someone who did not want to join a denomination, but wanted fellowship with the/a church, the last thing I wanted was to find myself in another cult or strange sect. Reading statements of Faith helped me to know and be reassured that a group, especially a small group, was not wandering towards heresy. So as Josh said above, they are helpful to new members and new Christians who just might like some guidelines. Over the last 8 years I have read many Statements of Faith. As for the negative consequences of not having one - I don't know that it is an absolute necessity for an individual church to have their own statement, but as the Body of Christ I think that the Church needs to hold fast to essential doctrines - that this will create unity and ward off heresy. (Do I think thats possible, that so many leaders and denominations could come to a common agreement on the essentials? - not if I listen to the leaders from the church I left behind who told me "other Christians" are all warring against each other and can't agree on anything.) I do totally see your points that Statements of Faith could be construed as devise or exclusionary because I don't think agreement should be the grounds that determine fellowship. How then would we reach unbelievers. I think a book is a good place to learn about "what most Christians believe". I don't think the church I was raised in ever titled anything Statement of Faith - although what we believed about certain things was often summed up in memorizable form. Yeah, just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 12, 2012 9:00:17 GMT -8
Shirley,
Thanks a lot for your responses here. They are very thoughtful and super helpful for me (and all of us).
|
|
shirley
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by shirley on Feb 12, 2012 9:22:03 GMT -8
"Apostles Creed Traditional English Version I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN." I'm good with this one. At the Latvian Lutheran Church services I've gone to with Eriks they always say this and "Our Father" (in Latvian of course). So Josh, As far as #11 goes I'm surprised to find that it is reflective of what I was taught and not what I was taught Christianity believed. I don't know what futurism or preterism are. Also I didn't know that anyone other than Catholics(praying for the dead) considered the idea of Universal Salvation. No offense intended. Yes I've been reading the thread on this. And I know that are threads on endtimes too and I'll get there. I am confused and just mean I'm not ready to define my views here right now.
|
|
shirley
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by shirley on Feb 12, 2012 9:24:37 GMT -8
Shirley, Thanks a lot for your responses here. They are very thoughtful and super helpful for me (and all of us). You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 12, 2012 16:44:44 GMT -8
As far as history goes, the Apostles Creed has enjoyed a high amount of approval, except for the Jesus descended into hell, which is often debated (I do hold to it, but many don't)
Regarding the Eschtaology of #11, how is it similar to "local church theology". Just curious.
Also, although Catholics leave out hope for Christians in purgatory (Catholic purgatory is only for Christians), they have rarely endorsed Christian universalism, in which all can or will eventually be saved from hell through Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 12, 2012 18:20:56 GMT -8
Here's a response to some feedback I received on something I said that might have been unclear. I did not intend to convey that Jesus' words in the Gospels are somehow inferior to the rest of the bible. I was trying to counter the somewhat popular idea these days that Paul’s letters are less authoritative than the Gospels. And also I was trying to say that context is very important when trying to understand what Jesus requires of us today. It’s not always crystal clear how to apply everything Jesus said to us (like in the example of his advice to the rich young ruler) The Gospels are no less important and no more important, as a whole, than the Epistles. I was just trying to say that the Gospels and Paul’s epistles have their own relative strong points from an apologetics perspective (for a skeptic, nearness to the events like Paul has in a mark of trustworthiness that the gospels don’t have) So, I was just saying that it seems silly to me to say that the Gospels are more authoritative than the epistles. Hope that helps. Follow up with any questions you still have. For more on this subject, see: Paul vs. the Gospels? aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=inspiration&action=display&thread=2366
|
|
shirley
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by shirley on Feb 15, 2012 13:13:58 GMT -8
There's a few things on my mind this week from this thread and the discussion this Sunday, but I don't have much time, but I wanted to respond to this. Regarding the Eschtaology of #11, how is it similar to "local church theology". Just curious. They do not believe that when we die we go to heaven. “When I die...God's celestial shores...I'll fly away...” (I actually really like this song, even though I don't think I believe in it.) They believe that upon death the human spirit lies dormant until the Judgement (unless you're one of the first fruits). They do believe in: The Lord’s final return, The resurrection of all the dead, The judgment by Christ of all mankind, The final establishment of the New Heavens and New Earth as the home of those made righteous through Christ.[they of course will be the ones seated at the right hand of God] Hell as separation from God (whether temporary or eternal) [they would say eternally] So I feel like I can agree with those points. But as far as what I've been taught the doctrine of eschatology does not end there. The local church teaching is Futurist they believe that one day soon there will be a rapture and they believe that they “God's elect” will be the primary ones that disappear. Not that saints should let this go to their heads because we know not the day or hour, which is why we must Always rejoice and Unceasingly Pray for this is the will of God....lest at the moment of his return we not be "in the spirit" and miss out. They believe that Christians all think that when they die they are going to go to heaven to be with God and fly around like angels and that the Book of Revelation is too difficult to understand and should therefore be ignored. They teach that the groups that pay attention to Revelation are the cults and that is how they draw people in. Ironic isn't it. Their Bible is highly footnoted in this area and upon pulling it out of "that box" and reading some of the footnotes today, I would say that those notes best describe in their own words their arrogance and deviation from the rest of Christianity. When I say I agree and then but this is what I've been taught please (!!!!!) don't think I am saying I agree with what I've been taught, rather this is something I need to think about or even have challenged. thanks
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2012 18:38:03 GMT -8
I don't know if they called it this, but their view is akin to those who believe that between death and the resurrection, the dead experience "soul sleep".
While there are verses that might seem to support soul sleep (notably references to death as 'falling asleep') there are other verses which seem to imply that we will be consciously in the presence of Jesus after death, while we await the resurrection of our bodies. (I'll have to add them later, I gotta run)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 15, 2012 19:25:21 GMT -8
Verses typically used against the idea of soul sleep:
Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”
2 Cor. 5:8 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord
Philippians 1:21-24 21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.
Revelation 6:9-11 9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" 11 Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.
Oh, and the story (or parable) of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16.
These last two references refer specifically to consciousness after death and before resurrection, however, the context of both could be considered by some to be metaphorical. I personally think that they strongly insinuate post-mortem consciousness.
N-E-Way,
Regarding Christian songs that talk about "flying away when we die", a couple thoughts:
1) though we shouldn't probably take the reference too literally, Paul himself talks about us being "caught up together in the air with the Lord", though that reference is to our resurrection, not the point of death itself. (1 Thess 4:16-17)
2) Though we might speak of death or the resurrection as "flying away" in some ways, we must be careful to remember that God's ultimate plan for humanity is that we will be physically resurrected with new bodies (alike in some ways and different in some ways from our mortal existence) and to live on the earth he created for us. Though "this [present] world is not our home" right now, it will be someday.
Finally, I think these are all secondary points I'm making that really aren't essentials (though I think it's very important that Christians avoid too Platonic of an idea of the afterlife)
|
|
shirley
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 114
|
Post by shirley on Feb 17, 2012 14:33:21 GMT -8
I don't know if they called it this, but their view is akin to those who believe that between death and the resurrection, the dead experience "soul sleep". No they would never use the term "soul sleep" because they very adamantly believe that the soul and spirit are separate. "Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit..." This would be one of the verses they would point out to show that. Looking in my ESV concordance the word soul and spirit(small s) appear about the same number of times. It's my understanding that most Christians believe them to be interchangeable. I think they believe that both transcend the physical death, only the spirit survives pure and wholly and the soul - if not perfected on earth before death, will eventually be transformed into God-likeness and of course we will be given a New Body. Hmmm....Those first three verses you mentioned...it's funny how verses say different things when you have a different perspective. I mean that I know all of the verses you mentioned from being raised in the Local Church. The ones in Rev. make me want to prefer "soul sleep" to a long conscious wait. But anyway, like you said, these are secondary matters and I think divisions arise when secondary matters are made primary.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 17, 2012 18:11:01 GMT -8
Hmmm....Those first three verses you mentioned...it's funny how verses say different things when you have a different perspective. I mean that I know all of the verses you mentioned from being raised in the Local Church. The ones in Rev. make me want to prefer "soul sleep" to a long conscious wait. But anyway, like you said, these are secondary matters and I think divisions arise when secondary matters are made primary. Yes, the first three don't rule out "sleeping in the presence of the Lord". I don't see the Revelation one as super literal- ie, that the dead are in a state of constant agitation. Just that the dead in Christ may be aware of events on earth.
|
|