Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Who is "in" the Body?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I think this list makes too many things essential. I don't think holding to inerrancy is necessary to be a Christian, for instance. Nor would I say it about the virgin birth, though I don't see any good reason to reject the virgin birth.
    I started to make a general statement of agreement with you here, then I reread TM's post, and he's specifically referring to "teachers". That's the same caveat I made in my post about 'who's "in"'.

    Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
    Ultimately, God choses who is in the Body of Christ and who isn't. In some ways, its a waste of time to try figure out who is in and who is out. The exception, I'll make here is regarding teachers - you have to be very careful not to follow a false teacher.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
      Ultimately, God choses who is in the Body of Christ and who isn't. In some ways, its a waste of time to try figure out who is in and who is out. The exception, I'll make here is regarding teachers - you have to be very careful not to follow a false teacher.

      Awhile back, I went through an exercise to figure out what I thought were the essentials. For what it's worth, here's my list
      1. I believe in God, eternal and existing outside of time, perfect, holy, and in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
      2. I believe Christ Jesus is the Son and:
        1. Christ Jesus is God Incarnate as a man.
        2. Christ Jesus was born of a Virgin
        3. Christ Jesus lived a Sinless Life and is the example of how I should live my life
        4. Christ Jesus Worked Miracles
        5. Christ Jesus’ Death Provides the Only means of Atonement for the Sins of Humanity. In other words, Christ Jesus is the only way to God.
        6. Christ Jesus Physically Rose from the Dead and Was Seen Alive by Many
        7. Christ Jesus Ascended Bodily to the Father
        8. Christ Jesus is Coming Again

      3. Salvation is a gift of God and not earned by any action of man.
      4. The Bible is the only reliable revelation of God to man. In the original manuscripts, it is inerrant, inspired, and perfect. Despite all the copies that have been made since it was written, no error that changes a major doctrine has occurred. It contains all the principles I need to live life faithful to God’s will. Other books may contain elements of truth but they are not reliable because of the falsehoods they contain.
      Interesting. I think this list could get a number of people in trouble. So, for instance, some Christian theologians believe that God created the universe (including time) sans time, and then upon it's creation entered time (this is a view held by people like William Lane Craig). Lots of Christians, even Christians on this forum, would take issue with your view of an inerrant scripture, and/or that it's the only reliable revelation of God. And there are even some Christian scholars (who might otherwise be considered "orthodox") who doubt the virgin birth narrative.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        I think it's pretty important, and I've even adapted the way I ask the question. I used to be pretty binary in "there are only two kinds of people - saved and lost". Then I heard Paul Little ask a more general "... or are you still on the way?"

        I've found that to be much more helpful, as people seem more receptive to that --- kinda of "no, I guess I'm not a Christian, but I'm on the path...." and you can help them find the way.

        It really kinda bothers me that we try to force people into labels - I mean, for what purpose?
        Plenty of purposes. Mostly so that we can stay on guard to false or improper teaching, and correct those outside the body who think they are in it. Imagine a discussion with a Mormon who believes he's arrived. Clearly he's not in the body, but he may believe he is. Do we allow him to continue along his merry way, and risk that he will never attain salvation for following after false or outright evil doctrines? I don't think so.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          Plenty of purposes. Mostly so that we can stay on guard to false or improper teaching,
          Yeah, I mentioned that.

          and correct those outside the body who think they are in it. Imagine a discussion with a Mormon who believes he's arrived? Clearly he's not in the body, but he may believe he is. Do we allow him to continue along his merry way, and risk that he will never attain salvation for following after false or outright evil doctrines? I don't think so.
          In the case of a Mormon, it's a totally wrong theology, not an underdeveloped one. So, sure, if we see error, it's our responsibility to call it out.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I think that's different, though. We have rules that only Christians, for example, can post in "Christian" sections.

            I just think, when we talk about who's "in", it sounds more like we're trying to make it some exclusive club whose membership is in the hands of the members, rather than the hands of the Lord.
            I don't think it's completely unscriptural to think of it in these terms...that Christianity is an exclusive club and that sometimes it is up to the members. Jesus, Paul, and a number of the epistles discuss either dis-fellowshipping with certain people who will not see correction, and to be aware of those following false doctrines because of ant-Christs who have come into the world, and because people having itching ears to hear what they want to hear. While generally speaking I agree with you that we are to just love people, and to lead by example, there are also going to be times when people won't head correction and correct doctrine, and that needs to be dealt with somehow for the sake of the rest of the body. The fact that some people are simply less mature than others, I think, is a side point. No one is saying anyone needs to memorize the Creeds, and apologetics, or even to have ever heard of a "Creed" or an "Apologetic", but there is valuable information packed within, say, the Apostle's or Nicene Creed that a person calling themselves a Christian should be aware of (the existence of God, and Jesus, the recognition of personal sins, the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, etc.).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Yeah, I mentioned that.
              Well there you go then.

              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              In the case of a Mormon, it's a totally wrong theology, not an underdeveloped one. So, sure, if we see error, it's our responsibility to call it out.
              Correct, but from the Mormon's perspective, they are a Christian. Which I assumed was the sort of thing the OP was trying to get at. Who is in the Body? Is the Mormon? From the Mormon's perspective they are. From the orthodox Christian's perspective they aren't. Perhaps you're talking past the OP though, or maybe I misunderstood it.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                Interesting. I think this list could get a number of people in trouble. So, for instance, some Christian theologians believe that God created the universe (including time) sans time, and then upon it's creation entered time (this is a view held by people like William Lane Craig). Lots of Christians, even Christians on this forum, would take issue with your view of an inerrant scripture, and/or that it's the only reliable revelation of God. And there are even some Christian scholars (who might otherwise be considered "orthodox") who doubt the virgin birth narrative.
                Considering I don't even mention creation, I'm not sure you got that from.

                Mainly I use my list for when I am in a discussion or church shopping. Helps me sort out is the issue at hand something I view as essential and worth fighting over or withdrawing from fellowship or can good people of good faith disagree on the matter. I've seen too many vicious fights in the latter category.
                "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I have some people who come from a group home down the street, and though adults, they function more at the 12 year old or below level. We love them and accept them, and some of them claim to be "Christians". They haven't got a clue about inerrancy or the Apostle's Creed (whatever version) or apologetics. A couple Wednesday nights ago, at our fellowship meal, one of them asked if they could say the blessing before the meal. I consented, knowing that if they messed it up too badly, the rest of the people were mature enough to understand "the effort". The lady prayed the most beautiful and sincere "childlike faith" prayer I've heard in a long long time.
                  Having had similar experiences, I heartily concur with you.
                  "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

                  "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
                    Considering I don't even mention creation, I'm not sure you got that from.
                    I know you didn't. I was explaining someone like Craig's view. He believes that God is in time (upon the creation of the universe) rather than outside of time, which would seemingly go against one of your essentials (unless I somehow misunderstood you).

                    Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
                    Mainly I use my list for when I am in a discussion or church shopping. Helps me sort out is the issue at hand something I view as essential and worth fighting over or withdrawing from fellowship or can good people of good faith disagree on the matter. I've seen too many vicious fights in the latter category.
                    Ah, so these are not necessarily essentials of the Body....those things that would separate a Christian from a non-Christian, but personal essentials that you look for upon joining a church? If so, I guess I failed to see the relation to the OP.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      For those replying to this thread, I think it might be important to know that it's a split from this thread by Scrawly. Basically Scrawly is discussing the concept of re-conversion, specifically the type of re-conversion that happens to people who had deconverted from a more Evangelical and/or orthodox Christianity and reconverted to a more liberal and/or heterodox Christianity. The example given is of Jen Hatmaker, a relatively popular Christian author who on a recent podcast hosted by Peter Enns (a controversial Biblical scholar) declared her deconversion from what she believed to be an anti-homosexual intolerant Christianity, to a reconversion towards a much more liberal and accepting Christianity that sees the LGBQT movement as consistent with biblical Christianity. Scrawly points to a couple articles on this subject, notably one by Biblical scholar Michael J. Kruger called The Power of De-Conversion Stories: How Jen Hatmaker is Trying to Change Minds About the Bible. In this particular article, Prof. Kruger is pointing out a common theme that's come about recently where apostates to Christianity now often evangelize to the saved in order to de-Christianize them. But nearly as bad is a new type of re-convert (like Rob Bell, Peter Enns, and Hatmaker) who wants to move orthodox evangelicals towards a more liberal Christianity. Kruger names 5 techniques that re-converts use in order to make this happen, among them is to suggest that we are all on a journey, and that there is nothing more offensive than being dogmatic about correct theology.

                      Hopefully understanding the context that the OP was written in will help make sense of what he's asking about. I highly suggest checking out Prof. Kruger's article at the link above. It's good stuff, and demonstrates where the issue really lies.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                        Ah, but then there's Romans 10:9,

                        Scripture Verse:

                        If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Who is right, Luke or Paul? Or are they both right, and "Believe in the Lord Jesus" would include things like believing that God exists, that Jesus exists, that Jesus is the Christ, the incarnate Word of God, that we are sinners in need of redemption, that Jesus was crucified for our sins, and was raised from the dead? That's the question that's being asked, I think. Anyone can declare they believe in the Lord Jesus. What the OP is attempting to do is figure out what it means to believe in him.
                        The question was how much can be dropped. It is not in our ability to know who believes (trusts has faith in or gives credence to, in my understanding) in the Lord, but a declaration does not equal belief.

                        My bottom line is that when two scripture verses seem to disagree, is I assume both are true and try to see what the correct understanding may be.

                        ETA: I confess to not responding strictly in accord with the OP op in Scrawly's thread. Take my response for what it is worth.
                        Last edited by Jedidiah; 02-11-2018, 07:03 PM.
                        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          I think this list makes too many things essential. I don't think holding to inerrancy is necessary to be a Christian, for instance. Nor would I say it about the virgin birth, though I don't see any good reason to reject the virgin birth.
                          I definitely think the virgin birth is essential, or at the very least, anyone who consciously denies the virgin birth is not a Christian. It would essentially be the same as denying Jesus' divinity.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            The question was how much can be dropped. It is not in our ability to know who believes (trusts has faith in or gives credence to, in my understanding) in the Lord, but a declaration does not equal belief.
                            I think it is, at least to some degree. After all, Jesus himself tells us that we will know some by their fruit. I don't think that gives us warrant to be overly critical of everyone and anyone, and surely only God himself knows the damned from the saved, but that doesn't mean that we have no way of telling whatsoever. The John Shelby Spongs of this world are certainly false prophets and are passing on bad fruit.

                            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            My bottom line is that when two scripture verses seem to disagree, is I assume both are true and try to see what the correct understanding may be.
                            I agree, which is why when we come to very simple passages like "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" we have to ask ourselves what it means to "believe in the Lord", especially when we have other passages that go on and say that we need to confess that Jesus is Lord, and believe in our hearts that God raised Jesus from the dead, and yet more passages that go on and tell us that we must recognize our own sins, and Jesus redemptive power over our sin, and so on.

                            Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                            ETA: I confess to not responding strictly in accord with the OP op in Scrawly's thread. Take my response for what it is worth.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              I definitely think the virgin birth is essential, or at the very least, anyone who consciously denies the virgin birth is not a Christian. It would essentially be the same as denying Jesus' divinity.
                              I don't think Jesus's divinity is dependent on Mary's virginity. My understanding is that is based on certain Catholic understandings of sex around the time of Augustine (?)
                              "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                                I definitely think the virgin birth is essential, or at the very least, anyone who consciously denies the virgin birth is not a Christian. It would essentially be the same as denying Jesus' divinity.
                                Yeah, that's a tricky one. I think some scholars who would consider themselves (and who are considered by others) Christian, consider the Virgin birth legendary embellishment. If memory serves, I believe Richard Rohrbaugh thinks the Virgin birth legendary though I believe he accepts the incarnation and the resurrection (and you see similar thinking from other Biblical scholars). Our own psstein seems to take a similar stance from a purely textual perspective, though seems to accept it as a matter of faith.

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X