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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post
    Without inerrancy, how would we have reliable information about God?
    I guess it comes down to what is meant by biblical inerrancy, there is a wide range of views. But most concepts are based on the nature of G-d, when he speaks we ought to listen.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.
      I think we need to differentiate between two types of "essentials" (and these wouldn't even necessarily be conscious beliefs) for being a Christian. The first would be "positive" essentials, such as having faith in God or assenting to the absolute core tenets of the Christian faith (and a person could theoretically hold to these beliefs while simultaneously being unable to express them in a satisfactory manner). The second type of essentials would be "negative" essentials or essentials that you do not necessarily have to hold to in order to be saved, but consciously rejecting them would definitely mean that you're not a Christian.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        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've always understood the virgin birth to encapsulate both Mary's virginity and Jesus' miraculous conception. I suppose one could theoretically believe that Mary was not a virgin and still hold that Jesus was conceived without a human father through the agency of the Holy Spirit, but why anyone would do that in the first place boggles my mind.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          I've always understood the virgin birth to encapsulate both Mary's virginity and Jesus' miraculous conception. I suppose one could theoretically believe that Mary was not a virgin and still hold that Jesus was conceived without a human father through the agency of the Holy Spirit, but why anyone would do that in the first place boggles my mind.
          I don't see any exegetical warrant for it myself, but supposedly Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought the biblical record was "ambiguous" on the matter so there are those who have doubted. I'm not willing to cast them off on that basis alone.
          "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


          • #35
            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
            I think we need to differentiate between two types of "essentials" (and these wouldn't even necessarily be conscious beliefs) for being a Christian. The first would be "positive" essentials, such as having faith in God or assenting to the absolute core tenets of the Christian faith (and a person could theoretically hold to these beliefs while simultaneously being unable to express them in a satisfactory manner). The second type of essentials would be "negative" essentials or essentials that you do not necessarily have to hold to in order to be saved, but consciously rejecting them would definitely mean that you're not a Christian.
            I think I have been duly chastised for not discerning the origin of the OP as having been a split from a previous thread, so I really don't know what I'm talking about.

            I just know that I'm an old fashioned (dinosaur) soulwinner who deals with people who didn't grow up in Church, and who don't really have a clue who the early church fathers were, or anything about Church history or councils or dogma.... they just know they are sinners saved by Grace, as am I.

            I just wish there was more interest in getting lost people into the kingdom, and less fussing about who is and isn't "in". But, again, what do I know?
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #36
              Let me make things a little more personal. My grandmother believes that the Bible teaches the inferiority of the black race. I think that's an awful heresy, and just plain wrong, and has negative effects on the Christianity in America as well as one's one spiritual life. But am I willing to say that she's not a Christian? Not at all. She has an active spiritual life, and even though I think she's badly mistaken, I don't see anything she does listed as one of the sins Paul mentions that keeps you out of the kingdom, and I know she trusts in Jesus as her only savior.
              "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


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                I think I have been duly chastised for not discerning the origin of the OP as having been a split from a previous thread, so I really don't know what I'm talking about.

                I just know that I'm an old fashioned (dinosaur) soulwinner who deals with people who didn't grow up in Church, and who don't really have a clue who the early church fathers were, or anything about Church history or councils or dogma.... they just know they are sinners saved by Grace, as am I.

                I just wish there was more interest in getting lost people into the kingdom, and less fussing about who is and isn't "in". But, again, what do I know?
                This is about me, isn't it.

                Again, though, I don't think anyone here was saying that you HAVE to know the Creeds themselves, or who the Church Fathers are, or Church history, or anything like that. I don't think anyone in this entire thread disagrees that one can be a devout and even powerful Christian without all that head knowledge stuff. That seems to me to be a completely separate discussion. If you'd like to start more threads on soul winning, and how people can be devout, powerful Christians without being all knowed-up, I'd love to read and participate in them though.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I just know that I'm an old fashioned (dinosaur) soulwinner who deals with people who didn't grow up in Church, and who don't really have a clue who the early church fathers were, or anything about Church history or councils or dogma.... they just know they are sinners saved by Grace, as am I.
                  I grew up without knowing a thing about any of that stuff either, and I would still consider myself as having been a Christian during that time.

                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I just wish there was more interest in getting lost people into the kingdom, and less fussing about who is and isn't "in". But, again, what do I know?
                  There should definitely be a lot more focus on evangelizing but at the same time I think that unless you know where the borders are you might have a bit of trouble making sure that where you're leading them is actually within the kingdom.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    This is about me, isn't it.
                    That's my line! (but, yeah)

                    Again, though, I don't think anyone here was saying that you HAVE to know the Creeds themselves, or who the Church Fathers are, or Church history, or anything like that. I don't think anyone in this entire thread disagrees that one can be a devout and even powerful Christian without all that head knowledge stuff. That seems to me to be a completely separate discussion. If you'd like to start more threads on soul winning, and how people can be devout, powerful Christians without being all knowed-up, I'd love to read and participate in them though.
                    I've started threads like that --- crickets.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                      I grew up without knowing a thing about any of that stuff either, and I would still consider myself as having been a Christian during that time.
                      Yup - I see it all the time.

                      There should definitely be a lot more focus on evangelizing but at the same time I think that unless you know where the borders are you might have a bit of trouble making sure that where you're leading them is actually within the kingdom.
                      That's why discipleship is critical.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                        Let me make things a little more personal. My grandmother believes that the Bible teaches the inferiority of the black race. I think that's an awful heresy, and just plain wrong, and has negative effects on the Christianity in America as well as one's one spiritual life. But am I willing to say that she's not a Christian? Not at all. She has an active spiritual life, and even though I think she's badly mistaken, I don't see anything she does listed as one of the sins Paul mentions that keeps you out of the kingdom, and I know she trusts in Jesus as her only savior.
                        Yeah. I think Christ's mercy on plain ignorance has a pretty long reach. That's why I think it's possible, for instance, for Oneness Pentecostals who have a terrible grasp on the Trinity and the nature of Christ may still be saved. I don't think any of us can say where the exact leap off point is, but I think most orthodox Christians agree that there is a leap off point, and there are some points of doctrine whose acceptance is closer to essential than not. Unless you're a Universalist, and then I guess all bets are off.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          I've started threads like that --- crickets.
                          If I recall, they did okay.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                            Let me make things a little more personal. My grandmother believes that the Bible teaches the inferiority of the black race. I think that's an awful heresy, and just plain wrong, and has negative effects on the Christianity in America as well as one's one spiritual life. But am I willing to say that she's not a Christian? Not at all. She has an active spiritual life, and even though I think she's badly mistaken, I don't see anything she does listed as one of the sins Paul mentions that keeps you out of the kingdom, and I know she trusts in Jesus as her only savior.
                            I mean, aside from your usage of the term heresy (which I've always understood to be beliefs/doctrines that are in such a strong degree of variance with established orthodox doctrines that they put you squarely outside of orthodox Christianity) I do agree with you that her belief in the inferiority of black people doesn't exclude her from being a Christian.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              Yeah. I think Christ's mercy on plain ignorance has a pretty long reach. That's why I think it's possible, for instance, for Oneness Pentecostals who have a terrible grasp on the Trinity and the nature of Christ may still be saved. I don't think any of us can say where the exact leap off point is, but I think most orthodox Christians agree that there is a leap off point, and there are some points of doctrine whose acceptance is closer to essential than not. Unless you're a Universalist, and then I guess all bets are off.
                              Do you mean that you draw a line at universalism, or that a universalist would be in no position to judge? (If the latter, my understanding is that "Christian" universalism generally does differentiate between saved and not in this life, and relies on a purgatorial process for others.)
                              "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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                                Yeah. I think Christ's mercy on plain ignorance has a pretty long reach. That's why I think it's possible, for instance, for Oneness Pentecostals who have a terrible grasp on the Trinity and the nature of Christ may still be saved. I don't think any of us can say where the exact leap off point is, but I think most orthodox Christians agree that there is a leap off point, and there are some points of doctrine whose acceptance is closer to essential than not. Unless you're a Universalist, and then I guess all bets are off.
                                OK, so maybe you hit on something here --- there are certainly people who don't share my beliefs on certain things that would prevent them from teaching or holding a place of leadership in my Church, and maybe it would even be difficult having fellowship with them, but that doens't mean I think they're not saved.

                                So, maybe there's that.... I don't necessarily think they're "not Christians", but I don't question their Salvation - that's between them and the Lord.

                                It looks like it's a matter of ... "are they 'in' the body of Christ" (as in "all of the saints through all of the ages") or "do they fit in my understanding of what a Christian is.
                                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                                Comment

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