Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2006 9:28:32 GMT -5
Zorro, in another thread said:
"Then she (a worker) is wrong in this regard, also. The 2x2s reject nearly every orthodox doctrine of Christianity. You continue to confuse the methodology of ministry and fellowship with the core doctrines of salvation and orthodox belief.[/quote]
You made an excellent point here Z man...
Many sincere folk confuse methodology/praxis with belief. While faith does evidence itself, to degrees, in actions- actions really cannot provide total proof of a belief.
What are the core doctrines in the opinions of those who call themselves Christians on this board?
What are the lines that define a Christian belief?
Over what doctrine will you break fellowship with others who claim the same faith as you?
This is something that I'm currently thinking through, and I'll share as the conversation flows...
Thanks-
Karl
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 11, 2006 9:54:46 GMT -5
A framework for this type of discussion that I've found to be very helpful is to place each doctrine/issue under one the following categories:
1. Essential for salvation 2. Essential for orthodoxy 3. Important, but not essential 4. Not important 5. Speculative
Some basic observations I've made are that the list of doctrines generally considered essential for salvation is much shorter than we've typically been led to believe. The problems arise when we try to dogmatically include issues that really fall under the last 3 categories. Secondly, if we can more clearly define categories 1 and 2 (admittedly not easy and naturally a work in progress for most of us individually), then we can deal with diversity of beliefs in the other categories with more Christian love.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 11, 2006 9:56:37 GMT -5
Maybe you should also define "fellowship" and "breaking fellowship" for the purposes of this discussion...?
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 11, 2006 12:41:54 GMT -5
The basic core of christian faith revolves around John 3:16.
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"
Variance is noted in others claiming the christian faith who redefine the term "belief"; attaching and defending their practices and methods of worship; causing the meaning of "belief" to take on a new meaning.
It might help to determine whether "belief" is a condition of the heart or an action word; demanding adherence to particular practices.
Those who counter John 3:16 as the core doctrine of christianity are those who deny that faith is sufficient to save us.
Howard
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 11, 2006 12:50:32 GMT -5
Lacpastor asked:
"Over what doctrine will you break fellowship with others who claim the same faith as you?"
Just had a recent blowup with a longtime friend over the issue of Hell.....is it a state of eternal punishing or is the punishment eternal death ("those who do not have the Son are condemned already because they do not believe in the only begotten Son of God") St John 3:18. It appears that rejection of Jesus condemns a person.....therefore acceptance of Him would serve the opposite. Yet there are those on this board who do not believe in "accepting the Lord".
Yes, it appears that fellowship is broken......will probably render our fellowship as fruitless.....maybe not even a topic that should be brought up between us. Easier to talk about the weather and politics I suppose.
Howard
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Aug 11, 2006 13:04:44 GMT -5
This is an interesting phenomenon to me...that a friendship could end or its status be significantly altered because of a difference of opinion on a matter of faith, especially if you agree on the "core" doctrine of Christianity. Howard, were there some other underlying issues that made this go from a disagreement to a "blowup"?
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 11, 2006 13:19:07 GMT -5
This is an interesting phenomenon to me...that a friendship could end or its status be significantly altered because of a difference of opinion on a matter of faith, especially if you agree on the "core" doctrine of Christianity. Howard, were there some other underlying issues that made this go from a disagreement to a "blowup"? No other issues at all, but it all transpired via emails online and we'd never fellowshipped in that way before. We've been special friends (both couples) for 25 years. We do agree on core doctrines, but I tried to defend the theory that our christian faith can be based on "whosoever believes in Me (Jesus)" and that's where the static started. I was said to be devil influenced and she even bawled me out for not capitalizing the word 'bible' when I typed it. Yes, it was a woman I was dealing with (LOL). Her husband and my wife are mum on those issues. She's outspoken and who knows......maybe I am too ! ;D Oh well, they invited us to their daughter's wedding reception so we'll go and talk about the weather, horses and the cake. I'm sure Jesus will take a back seat in our conversations from now on. Howard
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 11, 2006 13:22:11 GMT -5
Huck and Leo, This is exactly what I was referring to earlier....problems arise when one dogmatically insists that an issue that belongs somewhere in categories 3-5 be elevated into an essential class. I have a bro-in-law that also puts a literal, burning hell into the essential belief area....and is extremely dogmatic about it. IMO, this is completely unneccesary. Accepting diversity on the non-essentials is one of the keys to Christian fellowship. This is not to be confused with pretending it's not there and pointing to a system as evidence of unity. Romans 14 is in the Bible for a reason
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 11, 2006 13:34:48 GMT -5
FWIW, the doctrines I currently feel comfortable classifiying as essential to salvation are:
1. Belief in the existence of God. 2. Salvation by grace through faith alone. 3. The atonement. We understand that we are sinful, in need of a Savior, and Christ's blood atones for our sin. 4. Jesus lived, died and was resurrected.
I have been including Christ's deity, but I'm not certain that a person really needs to understand that to be saved. I know some feel it should be there and I have, also. At the very least, his deity needs to be accepted to continue in orthodoxy.
|
|
|
Post by Hope For All on Aug 11, 2006 13:42:10 GMT -5
The basic core of christian faith revolves around John 3:16. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"Variance is noted in others claiming the christian faith who redefine the term "belief"; attaching and defending their practices and methods of worship; causing the meaning of "belief" to take on a new meaning. It might help to determine whether "belief" is a condition of the heart or an action word; demanding adherence to particular practices. Those who counter John 3:16 as the core doctrine of christianity are those who deny that faith is sufficient to save us. Howard You hit the nail on the head. Belief is an action word as is saving faith. I get confused by people who maintain that there is "nothing we can do to be saved accept have faith in Jesus". When you try and point out that there are things we MUST DO to be saved, they immedietly assume that you believe in "salvation by works" and then accuse you of not believing in God's grace. What does being saved by faith REALLY mean. The devils believe and tremble so this tells me that just having a mental ackowledgment of Jesus is the Son of God is not enough. Jesus came and spent over 3 years preaching about things we MUST DO. Any gospal that ignores what Jesus said wust do is a false gospal and proves that we do not believe fully in Jesus. And heres's an interesting verse: James 2:24 "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."Love, HFA
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 11, 2006 14:03:22 GMT -5
HFA, What we are dealing with there is really the residue of a centuries long debate between Calvinists and Arminians. I haven't lined up yet in either group, but I have looked at them closely enough to determine a couple of things. Today's Calvinists and today's Arminians believe that each side has misrepresented the other's position regarding grace. The pivotal issue (the starting point for disagreement in the two camps, if you will) is whether or not we can be moved by God and be turned to him without his grace. From what I read, both camps agree that we must have God's grace to respond to him. Some Calvinists might be suprised that they share common ground with Arminians on this. Because both parties focus instead on "predestination" vs "free will" they miss the fact that their agreement on grace allows them to share a place within orthodoxy. Grace is the essential issue. For this reason I put predestination/free will in the "important, but not essential" category. There is no reason for disagreement on this issue to preclude Christians from having fellowship, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 11, 2006 20:55:24 GMT -5
Jesus came and spent over 3 years preaching about things we MUST DO. Any gospal that ignores what Jesus said wust do is a false gospal and proves that we do not believe fully in Jesus. I'd stand in support of the theory that there is nothing we can do to merit our salvation and that repetitious or acceptable tasks will not add to our chances. We could never as a christian people, agree on just what that consists of. The few posters to this board could never agree. The mention of "what Jesus said we must do" is the age old grounds for dispute and probably one that I could cause hurt feelings over too (again). The simple gospel gets all muddy at this point Zorro's 4 points in Reply #8 are the only witness material I'd feel safe in using..... (and even that is not preached as essential by many christian denominations). Don't make me name one of them...LOL. James 2:24 "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." Yes, it says "justified" and not "saved". The devils believe and tremble so this tells me that just having a mental ackowledgment of Jesus is the Son of God is not enough. That's why we are invited by Jesus to "come unto me" and to "open the door and I will come in unto you" and the basis of "whosoever believes in Me shall never die" and "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved". "Whosoever therefore," says Christ,"shall confess me before men, him will I confess before the father." Everyone will eventually use the "devils believe" argument when the going gets tough and it's usually to prove by the user that there are certain methods to follow and things to do. First, it was never given unto the devils to attain salvation as it is to us, yet it is our believing that gains us salvation and they are still lost (with all the believing they do). HFA, how do you use these verses in comparison with the "devils also believe" verse?
|
|
|
Post by Really on Aug 11, 2006 21:11:59 GMT -5
Good post Howard. Devils can't help but believe, and it's not possible for them to have faith since they have no hope.
I'll share a quote that helped me understand the faith/works issue; "True saving faith inevitably results in works that verify its existence".
Really
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 11, 2006 21:26:05 GMT -5
"Devils can't help but believe, and it's not possible for them to have faith since they have no hope."
Right, their destiny was marked from the beginning but we are still in the era of opportunity......"whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved".
The opposite truth is.....devils can call upon the name of the Lord all they want and they'll never be saved.
Really simple, Really !!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2006 10:10:51 GMT -5
FWIW, the doctrines I currently feel comfortable classifiying as essential to salvation are: 1. Belief in the existence of God. 2. Salvation by grace through faith alone. 3. The atonement. We understand that we are sinful, in need of a Savior, and Christ's blood atones for our sin. 4. Jesus lived, died and was resurrected. I have been including Christ's deity, but I'm not certain that a person really needs to understand that to be saved. I know some feel it should be there and I have, also. At the very least, his deity needs to be accepted to continue in orthodoxy. I would agree with these, but would also add the Salvation is only found in Jesus Christ. As far as the deity of Christ goes- while I can see the scenario where one does not believe in, or accept the full deity of Christ, what I have actually seen is that this understanding opens the door to really understanding and growing in one's faith. While I would not be quick to judge a person as non Christian who did not hold to the deity of Christ, I would really seek an understanding of their position on this. I do think that this is a pivotal issue, and I do believe that it is on the borderline of essential doctrine. (Yes, in my world, it is leaning towards essential...) Flame away... Karl
|
|
|
Post by spiderman on Aug 12, 2006 10:28:28 GMT -5
This is really a good thread, keep going, we'll all learn something! ;D
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 12, 2006 10:36:04 GMT -5
Karl,
It was on this internet that I first encountered people who believe that unless a person subscribes / believes the trinity doctrine, they are not saved. I was told that the nonbeliever (or even one who didn't understand the issue) were thereby worshipping a different Jesus.
Now don't we teach our children John 3:16 that says "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son........" ? I carried that thought into adulthood and it still makes perfect sense to me.
I still don't think it's essential to understand the trinity. Yes, I believe Jesus was God for he said "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" and "my father and I are one" and "He was in the world and the world was made by Him"......etc, but no, I don't understand HOW.
I don't see it as essential to salvation. Jesus said "Unless ye believe that I am". Yes, I believe that he was the savior, the sent one, the Son of God, the promised messiah. I don't read that verse to say "Unless ye believe that I am the I AM". I think there's much mixup in that area.
Believing that He was/is the son of God doesn't take away from His powers as God himself. My faith is not hampered by not understanding how the three are one.
"If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." (Nothing there to indicate a need to know or understand the trinity issue). Actually it separates the two.
Also St John 6:29 "This is the work of God that ye believe on Him whom He has sent". This verse actually asks us to believe on the one who was sent. No indication of a need to combine the two.
Howard
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 12, 2006 10:49:04 GMT -5
This is really a good thread, keep going, we'll all learn something! ;D If Howard can hold his tongue......LOL ;D Howard
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Aug 12, 2006 11:15:53 GMT -5
Karl, Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant is that I'm not sure a person needs to understand the deity of Christ to be saved. I think an understanding of Christ as God is necessary to continue, to be within orthodoxy. I feel the same about the trinity. Also, I assume that an understanding that salvation is in Jesus to be included in the general understanding of atonement. The reason I look at it this way is because a person can say they believe in Jesus, but not embrace the issues involved in the atonement, but not vice versa.
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Aug 12, 2006 12:23:54 GMT -5
FWIW, the doctrines I currently feel comfortable classifiying as essential to salvation are: 1. Belief in the existence of God. 2. Salvation by grace through faith alone. 3. The atonement. We understand that we are sinful, in need of a Savior, and Christ's blood atones for our sin. 4. Jesus lived, died and was resurrected. I have been including Christ's deity, but I'm not certain that a person really needs to understand that to be saved. I know some feel it should be there and I have, also. At the very least, his deity needs to be accepted to continue in orthodoxy. I would agree with these, but would also add the Salvation is only found in Jesus Christ. As far as the deity of Christ goes- while I can see the scenario where one does not believe in, or accept the full deity of Christ, what I have actually seen is that this understanding opens the door to really understanding and growing in one's faith. While I would not be quick to judge a person as non Christian who did not hold to the deity of Christ, I would really seek an understanding of their position on this. I do think that this is a pivotal issue, and I do believe that it is on the borderline of essential doctrine. (Yes, in my world, it is leaning towards essential...) Flame away... Karl I agree very much Karl with your thoughts in this area. It is not so much the lack of belief or understanding in Trinity or Incarnation which I find fault with in the the fellowship, but rather the insistance of members to ignore these doctrines. I noted in my KJV bible unders "God" both the incarnation and trinity are affirmed. I have a tuff time understanding how one can read the KJV bible and claim understanding and yet deny references which explain what one is reading. No I do not believe that a full understanding is required for Salvation but then when one becomes mature to the point of telling others they are the only right way, they should understand what is spoken of from the very book the study. Recap: Re: Jesus is God - Important? « Reply #12 on Jun 27, 2006, 12:35pm » -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Workers Response to : Incarnate God Jesus Quote: WE DO NOT TEACH THAT MY Response, Well then Who is Emmanuel?Silence filled the roomThe fatal crack in the foundation is the teaching and denial: It is that Jesus is NOT Deity. Etymology The English word deity is from the Latin deus, meaning 'god'. Similar is the Sanskrit deva, a god or celestial being. Related are words for the sky: Latin dies, day, divum, the open sky, Sanskrit div, diu, sky, day, shine. Also related are divine or divinity from Latin divinus from divus. See also Dyeus. The English word god is from the Anglo-Saxon, and similar words are found in many Germanic languages (e.g. the German Gott, God). They do not teach that!
Well then what do they Teach? Ok fair enough. But why tell me that I must deny my belief in salvation outside of the fellowship and the Incarnation.
|
|
|
Post by studylearning on Aug 12, 2006 12:25:39 GMT -5
My final point.
Which is the greater error?
Ignorance
Or
Self imposed Denial
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2006 15:23:29 GMT -5
Karl, Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. What I meant is that I'm not sure a person needs to understand the deity of Christ to be saved. I think an understanding of Christ as God is necessary to continue, to be within orthodoxy. I feel the same about the trinity. Also, I assume that an understanding that salvation is in Jesus to be included in the general understanding of atonement. The reason I look at it this way is because a person can say they believe in Jesus, but not embrace the issues involved in the atonement, but not vice versa. That's pretty much how I understood you Zman, sorry about the confusion . Karl
|
|
|
Post by Greg Lee unplugged on Aug 12, 2006 15:25:33 GMT -5
As to whether Jesus is God and the existance of the trinity, does your view affect your doctrine?
By that I mean if you believe in the trinity and Jesus as God in the flesh, do you tend to accept that salvation and sanctification is of God? And conversely, if you believe Jesus is not God in the flesh and the trinity is a false doctrine, do you believe in works of your own selfwill to obtain the love of God and be saved and sanctified?
And further, if you believe in works to obtain salvation are you more prone to judge others according to your standard as not being right than if you accept the grace of God and leave that judgement to God?
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 12, 2006 16:49:32 GMT -5
And to add to Greg's "if you believes",............
Many of us believe differently or at least slightly differently and not many of us would make the claim that we understand this concept of the trinity or many other mysteries of God completely........SO, is our salvation not secure until we get it all figured out?
Consider a 14 yr old youth......can he not be saved until he gets it right, understands the trinity doctrine completely etc...?
AND.......then consider that he might completely understand what he's taught but he was taught by Joe and Joe has a different viewpoint than Moe and Moe's understanding is opposite of what Zoe believes and....and....and......is his salvation at stake because of it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2006 16:53:42 GMT -5
And to add to Greg's "if you believes",............ Many of us believe differently or at least slightly differently and not many of us would make the claim that we understand this concept of the trinity or many other mysteries of God completely........SO, is our salvation not secure until we get it all figured out? Consider a 14 yr old youth......can he not be saved until he gets it right, understands the trinity doctrine completely etc...? AND.......then consider that he might completely understand what he's taught but he was taught by Joe and Joe has a different viewpoint than Moe and Moe's understanding is opposite of what Zoe believes and....and....and......is his salvation at stake because of it? I don't think that "understand", at least comprehensively, is what it comes down to. I do not fully comprehend or totally understand the Triunity of God, but it is stated as such and since the witness and testimony is credible I believe it. Karl
|
|
|
Post by HUCK on Aug 12, 2006 20:28:13 GMT -5
I believe it too, but now, "Lord help Thou mine unbelief".
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 13, 2006 21:44:36 GMT -5
I've been enjoying this thread...and especially your presence here Huck! Thanks for everyone's input. I can speak from my own experience that one does not need to understand the deity of Christ or the trinity doctrine to be saved. Nothing can convince me that I did not receive the indwelling Holy Spirit in the spring of 1980. It was an incredible experience for me, and one that completely changed the direction of my life from that moment onward. When it happened, I did not understand the trinity at all. I did not know that Jesus is God..in fact, even at that point, I would have likely been hesitant to accept such a doctrine. I didn't even understand the doctrine of grace! I KNOW I was filled with the Spirit of the living God that afternoon on my knees in my living room, but I hardly understood anything about it. I did understand that I had made a 100% complete surrender to God, the Father of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the Father of Jesus Christ who lived, was crucified and resurrected. I KNEW I was His child and that I'd been born into the heavenly kingdom/ dimension/realm. Learning about Jesus' nature and grace in more depth happened after my eyes were opened and I could understand the things of the Spirit more clearly. I don't think we can put any of this in a box. God does what God does. This has been my experience. Blessings, Linda
|
|
|
Post by selah on Aug 13, 2006 21:58:59 GMT -5
What would it take to break fellowship? Where is the dividing line?
My fellowship with a Christian sister has changed recently. I would not call it broken, since we still respect and honor one another as sisters in the Lord. We still love each other...but we have recently found it difficult to be in close fellowship. I'm not sure we've figured it all out yet, but we're trusting God and His direction for us.
I have another sister in the Lord, that I'm unable to fellowship with. Her views are so overwhelmingly different from mine, it makes even simple conversation strained. I do believe she is God's child and my sister in Him, but the topics in which we differ seem unavoidable in conversation. They are not matters of salvation, but they are things that significantly affect our everyday lives, so our opposing views limit our fellowship.
We often see each other, worship together and attend functions together. We genuinely care for one another, but we also know we so strongly disagree that it's likely better to limit ourselves to only short personal conversations. This seems to work for us. So, it seems that our fellowship is broken in a manner of speaking. It's kind of sad, but I don't really know how to resolve this in any better way than we have. Any other ideas?
Blessings, Linda
|
|