Believe Christ

[McCravey]

Should we be moving on from a theology based primarily on a belief IN Christ to believing Christ?

Is there a significant difference?

A subject discussed in my Sunday School Class.

Your thoughts?

 

[CaDan]

Should we be moving on from a theology based primarily on a belief IN Christ to believing Christ?

Is there a significant difference?

A subject discussed in my Sunday School Class.

Your thoughts?

Yes. And then move to being faithful to Christ.

 

[freespirit2001]

He-he-he.....typical.....LOLXOXLOL!!!!!

It sounds like someone could get really blown away, if a literal bible fact ever crossed someone's path here...

 

[newname]

God does not change, truth is truth,

if one has been given knowlege in Christ, then one is IN Christ with knowledge of who he is, understanding that he is the savior and he alone can get you to God,

if one has been given knowledge and is IN Christ, and they continue IN Christ, then God will lead them to BELIEVE Christ,

newname

 

[CaDan]

God does not change, truth is truth,

if one has been given knowlege in Christ, then one is IN Christ with knowledge of who he is, understanding that he is the savior and he alone can get you to God,

if one has been given knowledge and is IN Christ, and they continue IN Christ, then God will lead them to BELIEVE Christ,

newname

How then shall we live?

 

[freespirit2001]

Should we be moving on from a theology based primarily on a belief IN Christ to believing Christ?

Is there a significant difference?

A subject discussed in my Sunday School Class.

Your thoughts?

I've heard of the word: self-actualization and being more self-actualized through the work of Maslow and his--- Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. There are quite a few web sites of his work.
I believe our faith in God, is a gift of grace from God,Ephesians 2:8---
[bible]Ephesians 2:8[/bible]
but we can pray and ask him to increase our faith. I believe the more we are aware of what self-actualization is, the more we can apply it to our faith as well. (I think I have already heard the term applied to "faith" much earlier in time---"self-actualized faith"---a few decades ago---perhaps from the spiritual ideology of the early seventies---and in the new age perspectives of the movement of the Spirit through the social consciousness of these times.

I think as we begin to understand what self-actualization is in our own lives, we can apply it to our christian life in faith ....and live a more active faith in a living God. I think we should be careful of the stereo-typing from our conditoning. We need to take personal inventories of our own fears---individually as a person unto a living God and wellspring of all life itself.

We need to look at what self-actualized means in our own lives---and in our faith as well.

Henry Thoreau always wrote and expressed how he viewed self-actualization in his own life experiences---and in his faith in God. He often wrote about the discreptancies he saw in the Sunday believers, those with the sterotypal imaging of God reflected in the social conditions and the social consciousness of the time...
Carl Sagan, the scientist from the TV series of Cosmos alsowrites about that blinding "social consciousness" in quotes about religion and science.
Einstein had some good about religion and science also....William James, Albert Schwietzer, Lao Tze....Obviously these writers had found self-actualization in their lives....

Those who found it in their faith are also reflected in these passages of Hebrews:
[bible]Hebrews 11:1-40[/bible]
I love this Chapter of faith....

 

[leecappella]

God does not change, truth is truth,

if one has been given knowlege in Christ, then one is IN Christ with knowledge of who he is, understanding that he is the savior and he alone can get you to God,

if one has been given knowledge and is IN Christ, and they continue IN Christ, then God will lead them to BELIEVE Christ,

newname

I seem to understand what you are saying here, but as I read your words, I have to remember that you are supposedly stating your view based on your faith as you have been taught or as you have come to believe it to be. With or without the influence of someone who believes as you do or similarly.

I'm not sure if I can say that I was raised in the christian church, but my family and I did go to christian church when I was younger. So, I'm not quite sure what being raised in church actually means specifically. I say this to mention that I was taught the traditional view of chrisitianity. That is, one is only saved by faith in Christ alone. I am aware of this view, but I don't think it is the only view to be had by those who love God and seek relationship with God. Knowing that, I get what you stated in your above quote. Your quote, however, causes me to think. I have come to believe differently about salvation. Jesus is still a part of the equation, if you will, but, let's just say, if I were a movie producer like Mel Gibston or an author, my synopsis of the movie or book would have Jesus playing a different part in this thing called life and his purpose would not be the same as it might have been if I were still a child producing a movie or writing a book based on what I was told about traditional christianity.

Your quote stated that God does not change. I'm not sure what you mean by that. I can think of atleast one place in scripture that shows that God changed. So, you will have to be more specific when you say that. Are you referring to all things said and done by God or what? I can understand if you might be referring to God's essential character or nature. Then I would be in agreement with you.

Does being 'in Christ' mean that those who have placed faith in Christ for their salvation are 'in him'? I ask only because I believe that anyone can be in Christ, even if they are not religiously affiliated with christianity or if they are not a christian. I believe that anyone who practices righteousness is of God. Meaning, to me, that anyone (regardless of religious faith) who lives a righteous life, honors and glorifies Christ/God. Directly (via being a christian) or indirectly (via being of another faith in God). A person is considered 'in Christ' if they live as he lived, regardless if they are living as he lived (righteously) because they are a christian or because they are living righteously being of another faith in God. What was the name of the prostitute in scripture who was considered righteous? Hagar? Of what religious faith was she, despite the fact that scriptures calls her righteous for what she did? When Jesus answers the question of what one must do to live life eternal and he give the story of the good Samaritan, of which religious affiliation was the good Samaritan whom Jesus says to "Go and do likewise and ye shall live"? Maybe I got the scripture quotes wrong, but the point is still the same. I think righteousness is righteousness. Doing righteous things is the same as honoring God, despite one's faith in God. You may be 'in Christ' because it is your particular faith to 'believe in Christ', just as those who taught the same faith in the scriptures, paricularly in the new testament. It's what they believed. But, someone of another faith might also be 'in Christ' due to their Christ-like life of living righteously. Would God not consider them saved as well? Or, I should say, wouldn't God choose to save them also since being saved is an act of God's love and grace and NOT by anything that we might do like taking the action of placing faith in Jesus? Their life example IS Jesus' same example. If God is love and love IS God, then wouldn't anyone who loved be of God regardless of their faith in God?

 

[seebs]

How then shall we live?

This question turns out to be crucial to any theological question. For the most part, it's entirely unclear why we care about any question that doesn't answer this. What difference does it make?

 

[leecappella]

This question turns out to be crucial to any theological question. For the most part, it's entirely unclear why we care about any question that doesn't answer this. What difference does it make?

What difference does what make?

 

[Mustaphile]

What difference does what make?

I interpret what he is saying as, if it doesnt tell us 'How then shall we live?", then it makes very little difference to our life.

 

[seebs]

I interpret what he is saying as, if it doesnt tell us 'How then shall we live?", then it makes very little difference to our life.

Pretty much.

I don't see why I should form opinions on theological questions that do not change the answer to the question "what shall I do" under any circumstances. Who cares? I enjoy speculating, because I'm easily amused, but... It's not relevant. What's relevant is not what wood was used to make the cross, but whether I am willing to carry it.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Pretty much.

I don't see why I should form opinions on theological questions that do not change the answer to the question "what shall I do" under any circumstances. Who cares? I enjoy speculating, because I'm easily amused, but... It's not relevant. What's relevant is not what wood was used to make the cross, but whether I am willing to carry it.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to seebs again."

 

[CSMR]

This question turns out to be crucial to any theological question. For the most part, it's entirely unclear why we care about any question that doesn't answer this [How then shall we live?]. What difference does it make?

If I may ask a question, what is the "shall" here that is so important? Is it moral obligation, or just the future tense (a prediction of how we are going to live) or something else?

 

[seebs]

If I may ask a question, what is the "shall" here that is so important? Is it moral obligation, or just the future tense (a prediction of how we are going to live) or something else?

I think mostly a question of decisions. What decisions should I make? So, moral obligation, really. The future tense should, of course, follow from a recognition of the moral obligation.

(And yes, in retrospect I'm aware that will/shall are ambiguous in English.)

 

[CSMR]

OK, so you are saying that all theology apart from the Law (i.e. what we should do) is irrelevant - or that it is not clear how it is relevant.
You are much to be admired if this is the case for you - it certainly is not for me. Even if I knew the Law perfectly, there is more that I need to know. I know for instance that I should love and do what is loving of others, and know that I do not do it, and have no intention to do it. Therefore it is relevant to me, even though it does not contribute to my understanding of the law, to know how it is that while we were sinners, Christ died for us.
If I had the heart to do whatever is right, then all I should need to know is what is right; but as I do not, I also need to know how to find mercy.

 

[seebs]

Well, I think that answers the question "how shall we live" in a very important way; it tells us not to despair when we fall short! That, I think, is a very important question to have answered.

 

[leecappella]

Pretty much.

I don't see why I should form opinions on theological questions that do not change the answer to the question "what shall I do" under any circumstances. Who cares? I enjoy speculating, because I'm easily amused, but... It's not relevant. What's relevant is not what wood was used to make the cross, but whether I am willing to carry it.

I once had a friend tell me that above all things, loving God and loving one's neighbor as thyself is most important to God. EVERYTHING ELSE is just commentary open for discussion. Is this what you are saying as far as theological discussions go?

 

[Crazy Liz]

If I may ask a question, what is the "shall" here that is so important? Is it moral obligation, or just the future tense (a prediction of how we are going to live) or something else?

I think "shall" is a great word here, because it's both. For example, as the last few posts describe, the moral imperative alone is not sufficient. I think that is a lot of what Paul wrote about. The moral imperative is useless without hope, for example. Faith, hope and love have their motivatonal aspects, as well as their moral aspects. I'm not sure whether the moral and the motivational together exhaust the "shall," but the moral imperative alone is not sufficient.

 

[McCravey]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to seebs again."

Ugg! Don't you hate it when it says that!

 

[freespirit2001]

"Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being."
----Kahil Gibran