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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    If I recall, they did okay.
    Your memory is better than mine. (not sarcasm)
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
      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 mean that Christian Universalists consider all saved eventually (typically by abusing passages like 1 Timothy 2:4), and since (as far as I know) they're generally Inclusivist in nature, they don't care much about the concept of "essentials".

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        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.
        Right, and I understand where you're coming from there. I think, though, that there doesn't need to be a distinction between "are they in the body of Christ", and "do they fit my understanding of what a Christian is". Sometimes they are the same.

        I think where some of the talking past one another is happening is that you're constantly thinking of the man on the street who is entering your church. But what if we were talking about someone like...Thomas Monson, the recently passed away president of the Latter Day Saints. As far as I know, he sincerely believed he was a Christian, yet he held some extremely heterodox views on the nature of God, on the nature of Jesus, on the nature of redemption and salvation, heck on the very nature of humanity. He believed that men and women would become gods, that God was a man from the planet Kolob, and that Jesus and Satan were spiritual brothers. I think we can say with some certainty that Monson wasn't "in" the Body of Christ with those sorts of heterodox views, even if he was convinced that he was. And there's not much in his fruit, as far as I know, that says otherwise.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          I mean that Christian Universalists consider all saved eventually (typically by abusing passages like 1 Timothy 2:4), and since (as far as I know) they're generally Inclusivist in nature, they don't care much about the concept of "essentials".
          I'm very familiar with their tactics; I moderate a large Facebook group focused on hell, and they're quite obnoxious, with a penchant for typing in all caps and focusing on vague philosophical assertions to the detriment of scripture. There seems to be some variance among their stripes; the more serious ones do seem to care about such things.
          "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


          • #50
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            I'm very familiar with their tactics; I moderate a large Facebook group focused on hell, and they're quite obnoxious, with a penchant for typing in all caps and focusing on vague philosophical assertions to the detriment of scripture. There seems to be some variance among their stripes; the more serious ones do seem to care about such things.
            Yeah, it doesn't surprise me that they're not all in lock step. I imagine that there are some who are more Pluralist and some that are more Exclusivist, with most probably in the Inclusivist camp, but I don't know if there are any surveys that show actual numbers on which is which.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              I think we have to allow for stages of development.

              Somebody can "be saved" without even knowing that the Nicene Creed exists. Similarly, somebody can know the Nicene Creed by heart, and not "be saved".

              In the sense that "Christian" means "Christ follower" or "imitators of Christ", there are people who have accepted Christ as Savior, but don't grow to follow Him daily.
              I agree. I was saved but didn't understand the trinity at first because of a previous history with Jehovah's Witnesses when I was a kid. But I studied it diligently and came to the conclusion it was true.

              Comment


              • #52
                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?
                If you think about it, since God preknows everything, including who will be saved and who won't be, in some sense weren't we "saved" even before we believed? In God's eyes anyway. He will protect his own, so I think that anyone who would be saved will be saved.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  If you think about it, since God preknows everything, including who will be saved and who won't be, in some sense weren't we "saved" even before we believed? In God's eyes anyway. He will protect his own, so I think that anyone who would be saved will be saved.
                  Kinda Calvinisty, ain't it? I get where you're coming from, but that's a bit of a slippery slope in case you're not.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    A few other notes here. Inerrancy - It is God who is inerrant - so it follows what is actually God's word would actually be inerrant too. Mere ignorance of some truth does not automatically exclude one from salvation in the body of Christ. Such as the virgin birth. But deliberate denial of truth from God may indicate not being in the body of Christ. God being omnipresent, He would be everywhere, including in time (Psalm 90:2; Acts 17:28). Of those who are not in the body of Christ, it is written, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." -- Revelation 20:15.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Kinda Calvinisty, ain't it? I get where you're coming from, but that's a bit of a slippery slope in case you're not.
                      not really. If God knew I would decide to accept Jesus when I was 40, why wouldn't he make sure I got that chance? He didn't make me do it, just knew I would. So in his view I belonged to him before I even existed since he knew I would accept Jesus as my Lord at 40. I think calvinism is more about God choosing people to save then saving them. This is more about God preknowing who will freely choose him.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        not really. If God knew I would decide to accept Jesus when I was 40, why wouldn't he make sure I got that chance? He didn't make me do it, just knew I would. So in his view I belonged to him before I even existed since he knew I would accept Jesus as my Lord at 40. I think calvinism is more about God choosing people to save then saving them. This is more about God preknowing who will freely choose him.
                        On Molinism, you decided to accept Jesus when you were 40, and then God knew it. As I understand Molinist thought, though God knew you would accept Jesus chronologically prior to you doing so, but you did so ontologically prior to God's knowledge. On someone like Craig's view of Molinism, God ordered the world so that the most people who could come to saving faith would do so, but I'm not so certain that God selects for who makes that choice (making sure that you, personally, get the chance), only that the most who will, will do so. I don't know. It's a fine distinction I suppose, but the phrase "we were saved before we believed" just sounds off to me (even with passages like Jeremiah 1:5, and Galatians 1:15 which seem to indicate sanctification, but not salvation). Perhaps I'm just overthinking it though.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          On Molinism, you decided to accept Jesus when you were 40, and then God knew it. As I understand Molinist thought, though God knew you would accept Jesus chronologically prior to you doing so, but you did so ontologically prior to God's knowledge. On someone like Craig's view of Molinism, God ordered the world so that the most people who could come to saving faith would do so, but I'm not so certain that God selects for who makes that choice (making sure that you, personally, get the chance), only that the most who will, will do so. I don't know. It's a fine distinction I suppose, but the phrase "we were saved before we believed" just sounds off to me (even with passages like Jeremiah 1:5, and Galatians 1:15 which seem to indicate sanctification, but not salvation). Perhaps I'm just overthinking it though.
                          No IF we died before we accepted Jesus we would not have been saved. But I think that since God knows person A will accept Jesus at age X, he will make sure that person gets to age X to accept Jesus. In fact if the person did not get to age X and accept Jesus, then God would know that he would not, right? so in effect the saved person's entire life, as looked back on from eternity, was always "saved" even before he accepted Jesus, he just didn't know it yet.

                          I think that is what Paul is saying in Romans 8

                          29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

                          Not that he MADE them be saved like in Calvinism, but hat he knew they would be saved, so they always belonged to him even before they knew it themselves.
                          Last edited by Sparko; 02-12-2018, 11:01 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            No IF we died before we accepted Jesus we would not have been saved. But I think that since God knows person A will accept Jesus at age X, he will make sure that person gets to age X to accept Jesus. In fact if the person did not get to age X and accept Jesus, then God would know that he would not, right? so in effect the saved person's entire life, as looked back on from eternity, was always "saved" even before he accepted Jesus, he just didn't know it yet.

                            I think that is what Paul is saying in Romans 8

                            29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

                            Not that he MADE them be saved like in Calvinism, but hat he knew they would be saved, so they always belonged to him even before they knew it themselves.
                            These kinds of discussions make my head hurt.
                            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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 [of God,] and:
                                • Christ Jesus is God Incarnate as a man[;]
                                • Christ Jesus was born of a Virgin[;]
                                • Christ Jesus lived a Sinless Life and is the example of how I should live my life[;]
                                • Christ Jesus Worked Miracles[;]
                                • Christ Jesus’ Death Provides the Only means of Atonement for the Sins of Humanity [(][i]n other words, Christ Jesus is the only way to God[)][;]
                                • Christ Jesus Physically Rose from the Dead and Was Seen Alive by Many[;]
                                • Christ Jesus Ascended Bodily to the Father[;]
                                • 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.
                              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.
                              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. [emphasis added]
                              I strongly agree that the denial of the virginal conception of Jesus of Nazareth is a heterodox teaching that cannot in any way be reconciled with Christian belief. I do not believe that one has to subscribe to the inerrant nature of Scripture in order to be placed in a right relationship with God (i.e. be saved). I would say, however, that the more errant one comes to view the Scriptures, the more doctrines such as the virginal conception will come to be considered as optional, ‘non-essential’ tenets of the faith. There is a definite correlation between the two.
                              For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by simplicio View Post
                                What definition of Christianity is used, on a practical level, to decide who is included and who is excluded from the Body of Christ?

                                I wonder how often we accept the definition which includes [John] Wesley, [John] Calvin, [Martin] Luther, Pentecostals, [Charles] Finney, Billy Graham, and Billy Sunday, etc., then switch to some other definition when confronted with contemporaries.

                                I suppose a follow[-]up question would be how many things can be dropped and still be Christian?
                                Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                                At minimum I'd say the Nicene Creed. For your follow[-]up question, the answer would be "none[.]"
                                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                The Nicene Creed includes "begotten of the Father before all worlds[,]" [w]hich I reject. [A]ccording to that [declaration] then, I am not saved [—] so not a actually a Christian. Yet I believe in the interpretation of the Trinity believing in the eternal Sonship and personhood of the Holy Spirit! That the three Persons are the One Yahweh being the only true God.
                                I would agree that dogmatic acceptance of the doctrine of eternal generation is not required in order for one to be received as a Christian.
                                For Neo-Remonstration (Arminian/Remonstrant ruminations): <https://theremonstrant.blogspot.com>

                                Comment

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