Can I be a Christian with these beliefs? (moved from New Member Intros)

[If Not For Grace]

i used to hate Paul until i read his work for meself-alot of people take his teachings out of context. One thing we find out along the way is that what we beleive does not move a shovel of dirt. What is revealed is what we find to be truths. All that comes later, you are on the right track, WELCOME

 

[nnmartin]

I can't reply to any PM's as my post count is too low.

anyway , to sum up , at the moment I seen to be of a mixture of views - Christianity, Paganism and Hinduism - so I need to work out the way forward.

I think I will start a new thread in the Theology section if that would be more appropriate?

thanks for the replies.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has been moved from New Member Intros.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[hedrick]

How far can one realistically move away from the key concepts of the Bible and still be considered a Christian?

For instance I believe that through Jesus one can attain a sense of oneness with the cosmic life force but in no way can you actually commune with this force. As such Jesus himself is the highest power that man can strive to associate with without there being a Father of Christ as well. This cosmic life force could be interpreted as the biblical God in a sense though my view of this tends to reject many of the ideas of prayer to God, the burning bush, etc.. unless we think of Jesus and God as the same thing.

I guess this isn't really too far away from the biblical concept of God and Jesus?

anyone have any thoughts on this?

thanks

This is a difficult situation. You have some ideas that I think are really dubious. Not so much the initial message. It would place you as a liberal Christian, but there are certainly Christians who believe that. The more recent posting worries me more.

However Christianity is about following Christ, and new Christians (not to mention more seasoned Christians) don't always start out with all the right ideas.

Being a Christian is normally defined as following Jesus, accepting him as Lord and Savior, not as holding a particular theology, although theology can make that easier or harder.

One of the questions is what you mean by cosmic life force, and why it isn't God. While the terms sound new age, God is certainly a cosmic life force. Is your problem that you see the force as impersonal? Jesus certainly sees his Father as someone who treats us personally. While I'm open to the possibility of a Christian having some wrong ideas (particularly a new Christian), God as our Father is one of his most important teachings. You need to think carefully about whether if Jesus is such a high power, he might actually know something about the structure of the world.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

This is only my opinion (in fact I'm quoting my pastor, but it so happens I agree with him).

Pastor says there are two pillars of Christianity. The virgin birth, and the resurrection. He says if you don't agree with those two points, he doesn't know what it is, but it isn't Christianity. I quoted him because he put it rather nicely in a nutshell. YMMV.

 

[Bouke285]

The law of Christ (Gal 6:2), as there was a necessity for a change of the law (Heb 7:12).

Don't be fooled by those who would have you enslaved under the old yoke and burden.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:17

Don't be fooled by those who would place such little emphasis on Christ and what he came to do. Jesus came to fulfill the law. You can't fully understand the New Testament if you ignore the Old Testament. As believers in Christ's redemption, his sacrifice for our undeserving selves, the law is written in our heart. We live the law, think the law, and share the law. The law has been fully revealed through Jesus, we now have it as God always meant us to. The law has been perfected in us. Because of this, we no longer need to give our lives to the lists of rules presented in the OT, but we can now understand what God intended through those laws, through what He did with His people.

Ripping verses out of context does not help anyone's cause, but look at scripture as a whole. The Bible is a book about God's revelation, it shows the journey of man, from fall to redemption by our Creator. The compromising philosophy plagues our world today, that is why christian is almost a meaningless word now days, as some before me have said. The only way you can be with God for all eternity is if you believe that Jesus is God, that you need Him, that He took your place in eternal punishment, that He conquered death, and that He rose in the flesh. By His grace and your faith alone is Christ's redemption applied to you. These are the fundamentals of true Christianity. Many here will deny this statement, but don't be led astray.

 

[Nanopants]

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:17

Don't be fooled by those who would place such little emphasis on Christ and what he came to do. Jesus came to fulfill the law. You can't fully understand the New Testament if you ignore the Old Testament. As believers in Christ's redemption, his sacrifice for our undeserving selves, the law is written in our heart. We live the law, think the law, and share the law. The law has been fully revealed through Jesus, we now have it as God always meant us to. The law has been perfected in us. Because of this, we no longer need to give our lives to the lists of rules presented in the OT, but we can now understand what God intended through those laws, through what He did with His people.

Ripping verses out of context does not help anyone's cause, but look at scripture as a whole. The Bible is a book about God's revelation, it shows the journey of man, from fall to redemption by our Creator. The compromising philosophy plagues our world today, that is why christian is almost a meaningless word now days, as some before me have said. The only way you can be with God for all eternity is if you believe that Jesus is God, that you need Him, that He took your place in eternal punishment, that He conquered death, and that He rose in the flesh. By His grace and faith alone is Christ's redemption applied to you. These are the fundamentals of true Christianity. Many here will deny this statement, but don't be led astray.

*sigh* So now that we know who Christ is, and what his commandment is, why do we need the OT law? I just don't agree that we need anything from the OT to understand Christ. Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation of our faith, NOT the OT law. The Gospel explains the law, the law does not explain the Gospel. It's a subtle and yet an amazing difference.

 

[Catherineanne]

I can't reply to any PM's as my post count is too low.

anyway , to sum up , at the moment I seen to be of a mixture of views - Christianity, Paganism and Hinduism - so I need to work out the way forward.

I think I will start a new thread in the Theology section if that would be more appropriate?

thanks for the replies.

I think as long as you look for answers in the wrong place, you will only add to the confusion.

I recommend you choose one of the gospels; any will do, and read it through, perhaps over a few days. Get to know what it has to say about the Lord; what he said, what he did, how other people reacted to that.

Even if you think you already know the stories contained in the gospels, as most of us do, it can help to turn to this afresh once in a while.

After that take the time to consider whether the Lord is enough for you, or whether he needs Hinduism and a bit of paganism added on. If you do add these then you can have a Christian derived faith, but it won't be Christianity, and as I said above, there is not the same protection outside our faith as there is within it. It is too easy to be led astray and down the wrong paths.

Our faith is one of community and of ministers serving congregations. The ministers are there to ensure our faith stays on track and does not go astray, and the community is there to provide fellowship and support. It is possible to be a Christian without these, but it is not at all easy, and again lacks protection.

I wish you well.

 

[Catherineanne]

*sigh* So now that we know who Christ is, and what his commandment is, why do we need the OT law? I just don't agree that we need anything from the OT to understand Christ. Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation of our faith, NOT the OT law. The Gospel explains the law, the law does not explain the Gospel. It's a subtle and yet an amazing difference.

The OT is more than the law. From it we also get the following:

Therefore thus says the Lord God, "Behold I am laying in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation; he who believes will not be in haste." And I will make justice the line, and righteousness the plumbline.

Isaiah 28

Ironic, isn't it? You claim we don't need the OT to understand the Lord, and yet you use its language to describe him.

Which then begs the question; did God make a mistake in giving the law to the Israelites, or did the Israelites make a mistake in interpreting how to use that law. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the law itself. Paul followed it, Christ followed it, the disciples followed it. The law does not lead people astray, following the letter of the law while forgetting the heart of the law is what leads people astray.

Love is at the heart of our faith. If a person can love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and follow the law, then good for them. If they can do all of that, but not follow the law, then they have lost nothing. It is love that matters.

 

[katautumn]

I am fairly new to Christianity and would be called 'born again' in modern jargon I'm sure.

Basically I believe in the power and teachings of Jesus but not the Old Testament.

I look at the OT as a historical account based on the perspectives of the authors. Most of the OT is history and laws for the Jews. As we are not under the law it really makes for more of a fascinating study of history and culture than anything else. I also love the Psalms and Proverbs. Great songs of praise and words of wisdom.

As for Paul, I see him as a man striving for perfection but not necessarily as the fountain of pure truth.

Paul was a human being. Not only was he a human being, but before his conversion as a follow of Christ, as a disciple, Paul was known as Saul of Tarsus and was not only a Pharisee, but actively participating in the persecution and execution of God's people. His conversion is a powerful testimony of Christ's justice, love, mercy and forgiveness. It does not, however, negate the fact that Paul was fallible man who was inspired and used by God. Most of the Pauline epistles were simply letters Paul wrote to the various churches that had been established since Jesus' death on the cross. This is not at all to say he was not Divinely inspired, but there is no requisite that says one must believe and have faith in Paul to be saved.

Is it possible to have these beliefs and still be a Christian?

If you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, came to earth in human form yet remained sinless, died on the cross for your sins and the sins of all mankind, and rose from the grave and ascended to heaven then you have what it takes to be a Christian. Do you have an earnest desire to seek God's will for your life? To follow His commands? To be christlike? Then you are a Christian.

 

[hedrick]

This is only my opinion (in fact I'm quoting my pastor, but it so happens I agree with him).

Pastor says there are two pillars of Christianity. The virgin birth, and the resurrection. He says if you don't agree with those two points, he doesn't know what it is, but it isn't Christianity. I quoted him because he put it rather nicely in a nutshell. YMMV.

The Resurrection I can see, but the virgin birth? I've seen only two reasons for considering it essential: (1) a belief in inerrancy, which is fine but not essential to being Christian, (2) an idea that Jesus' divinity depends upon the Virgin Birth. I never figured out how you can think that Jesus' divinity comes from the Virgin Birth without holding a docetic Christology.

 

[paul1149]

How far can one realistically move away from the key concepts of the Bible and still be considered a Christian?

The question isn't how far away from the real Jesus one can get, it's how close.

And the issue isn't whether or not one is considered by men to be a Christian, it's the Lord's verdict in the matter.

Keith Green said of his religious search that he had placed Jesus at the very bottom of his list. But as he studied other religions, he noticed that all their leaders pointed approvingly to Jesus, yet Jesus pointed only to Himself. There's an authority issue there. Green went on to find that God has ways of quickly getting us to the bottoms of our lists.

 

[Nanopants]

The OT is more than the law. From it we also get the following:

Therefore thus says the Lord God, "Behold I am laying in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation; he who believes will not be in haste." And I will make justice the line, and righteousness the plumbline.

Isaiah 28

Ironic, isn't it? You claim we don't need the OT to understand the Lord, and yet you use its language to describe him.

Which then begs the question; did God make a mistake in giving the law to the Israelites, or did the Israelites make a mistake in interpreting how to use that law. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the law itself. Paul followed it, Christ followed it, the disciples followed it. The law does not lead people astray, following the letter of the law while forgetting the heart of the law is what leads people astray.

Love is at the heart of our faith. If a person can love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strength and follow the law, then good for them. If they can do all of that, but not follow the law, then they have lost nothing. It is love that matters.

Sorry, but you're not getting it. Yes, Isaiah wrote about Christ, but the scripture is explained by Him. The "cornerstone" symbolism makes no sense apart from Christ. That being said, the OT points to Christ. Does the Gospel point to the OT as its fulfillment? I don't believe that it does or that it is even necessary. That isn't to say that the OT is entirely useless, just that it's not necessary: Once we have found faith in Christ, we're no longer in need of that old law (Gal 3:25).

 

[Catherineanne]

Sorry, but you're not getting it. Yes, Isaiah wrote about Christ, but the scripture is explained by Him. The "cornerstone" symbolism makes no sense apart from Christ. That being said, the OT points to Christ. Does the Gospel point to the OT as its fulfillment? I don't believe that it does or that it is even necessary. That isn't to say that the OT is entirely useless, just that it's not necessary: Once we have found faith in Christ, we're no longer in need of that old law (Gal 3:25).

I repeat, the OT is far more than the law. The canon of Scripture contains both Old and New Testaments, and in Timothy we read that it is useful for instruction, not as you seem to think, pretty well expendable before the gospels.

However, I doubt if there is much point trying again. It is not I who am failing to 'get' something important.

Good luck with that.

 

[Nanopants]

I repeat, the OT is far more than the law. The canon of Scripture contains both Old and New Testaments, and in Timothy we read that it is useful for instruction, not as you seem to think, pretty well expendable before the gospels.

However, I doubt if there is much point trying again. It is not I who am failing to 'get' something important.

Good luck with that.

Lol. Alright then. To clarify, I never said it wasn't useful, but useful isn't the same as necessary. Furthermore, if it were necessary, how could Paul have written Rom 2:14,15?

 

[thesunisout]

If you believe what Jesus taught, then you have to believe the Old Testament also. Jesus confirmed much to be true about the Old Testament. Here is a list of the events Jesus directly confirmed:

Jesus Believed Every Event of the Old Testament - Answers in Genesis

The Old Testament also contains all of the prophecies of the Messiah, which Jesus directly fulfilled:

Messianic Prophecies Fulfilled by Jesus Christ

Jesus has no legitimacy as the Messiah without these prophecies. If you rule out the OT then you also rule out the prophecies and make Jesus an illegitimate prophet.

Pauls writings were called scripture by Peter:

2 Peter 3:16

as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Paul witnessed the resurrected Jesus, and was inspired by the Holy Spirit. He was a true apostle. His testimony was approved by God.

Ask yourself if you are disputing his writings for scholarly reasons or because they call something sin that you enjoy and don't want to let go.

I am fairly new to Christianity and would be called 'born again' in modern jargon I'm sure.

Basically I believe in the power and teachings of Jesus but not the Old Testament.

As for Paul, I see him as a man striving for perfection but not necessarily as the fountain of pure truth.

Is it possible to have these beliefs and still be a Christian?

Which is the best section of the forum to discuss this in more detail?

thanks

 

[Nanopants]

Jesus has no legitimacy as the Messiah without these prophecies. If you rule out the OT then you also rule out the prophecies and make Jesus an illegitimate prophet.

Nobody is ruling out the OT. If one doesn't believe in the OT (particularly a new believer) does that mean he cannot believe in Christ? If the OT is excluded, does that render the identity of Christ as illegitimate? How can the OT be exalted as being equal to or greater than Christ if Christ is God in the flesh?

 

[thesunisout]

Yes, someone could believe in Christ without believing in the OT necessarily, however, I think that such a belief is internally and logically inconsistant and needs to be seriously examined. How can you walk with Jesus when you doubt His claims or the reasons why He came?

I am also not exatling the OT here. My point is that Jesus doesn't exist in a vacuum. Clearly, God could come unannounced and just say "Here I am" and we'd all worship Him. But He didn't do that. He came as the prophecied Messiah. So His claim to being the Messiah is not only resting on His Godhood but also His fulfillment of prophecy. If He couldnt fulfill the prophecies then all of His claims would come into serious question. To call the OT into question is treading on His legitmate claims to being the Messiah, and also, all the reasons that He came in the first place. The reason He had to come and redeem us is because of the original sin of Adam and Eve. Without redemptive history, His death on the cross doesn't even make sense. So clearly many problems crop up from denying the OT.

Nobody is ruling out the OT. If one doesn't believe in the OT (particularly a new believer) does that mean he cannot believe in Christ? If the OT is excluded, does that render the identity of Christ as illegitimate? How can the OT be exalted as being equal to or greater than Christ if Christ is God in the flesh?

 

[Nanopants]

Yes, someone could believe in Christ without believing in the OT necessarily, however, I think that such a belief is internally and logically inconsistant and needs to be seriously examined. How can you walk with Jesus when you doubt His claims or the reasons why He came?

I am also not exatling the OT here. My point is that Jesus doesn't exist in a vacuum. Clearly, God could come unannounced and just say "Here I am" and we'd all worship Him. But He didn't do that. He came as the prophecied Messiah. So His claim to being the Messiah is not only resting on His Godhood but also His fulfillment of prophecy. If He couldnt fulfill the prophecies then all of His claims would come into serious question. To call the OT into question is treading on His legitmate claims to being the Messiah, and also, all the reasons that He came in the first place. The reason He had to come and redeem us is because of the original sin of Adam and Eve. Without redemptive history, His death on the cross doesn't even make sense. So clearly many problems crop up from denying the OT.

I learned an interesting bit of history today. Apparently, some of the first groups of Christians in China didn't have bibles. All they had were one or two pages of something scribbled about Christianity.

Nature teaches us that we die. Christ said he came so that we may live, eternally. Enough said in my opinion, for the Gentiles. Everything is explained sufficiently in the Gospels, except perhaps, for Jewish believers. They need the prophecies so that they may believe in Christ as the messiah.

 

[thesunisout]

It's one thing to never see the OT, it's quite another to outright deny it is the word of God. It is very spiritually unhealthy to do that, and can lead to much apostacy. Just because we can know Jesus without reading the OT doesn't mean it is optional.

I learned an interesting bit of history today. Apparently, some of the first groups of Christians in China didn't have bibles. All they had were one or two pages of something scribbled about Christianity.

Nature teaches us that we die. Christ said he came so that we may live, eternally. Enough said in my opinion, for the Gentiles. Everything is explained sufficiently in the Gospels, except perhaps, for Jewish believers. They need the prophecies so that they may believe in Christ as the messiah.