Essentials verses non-Essentials

[SabbathBlessings]

I am not accusing, I am saying that I do not understand how your Is. response addresses my question. I'll address #29 separately. Forgive me that I didn't see it. I thought I was keeping track, obviously not.

No worries thats why we were probably both confused!

 

[SabbathBlessings]

What name did I call you?

BTW, in case you aren't aware, you labeled me a Gnostic or at best an Antinomian. Not that I care. Call me whatever you want. I'm here to hone my skills, so the more you can sling at me the better. I don't count it as sin. I am also here to learn.
Asking for clarification or making a misstep is to be expected since we both walltext.
So let's start over.

Actually I never said anything of the sort, if you go back and look at my posts I never used any of these terms. I really try to just stick with what the scriptures says and try to leave anything personal out of it.

I’m definitely more than willing to start over and it is nice to meet you and I too learn a lot from these forums. God bless!

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Actually I never said anything of the sort, if you go back and look at my posts I never used any of these terms. I really try to just stick with what the scriptures says and try to leave anything personal out of it.

It was the way you were arguing. But I get why I was coming across that way. At the start, you were coming across as Semi-Pelagian.
You're fine. It doesn't bother me to say, 'Look here, ThatGirl, you're espousing this or that heresy'. I don't take such things personally. Quite the opposite! I need to know if I am operating against 'the faith, delivered once for all'.
I only worry, that others get offended by me.

I’m definitely more than willing to start over and it is nice to meet you and I too learn a lot from these forums. God bless!

It's lovely to meet you as well! Thanks for the do over. It's very gracious of you! I'll be back later tonight.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

@SabbathBlessings

Thatgirloncfforums said:

Your argument doesn't hold up because you first have to demonstrate that the rich man knew Christ to be God, in order to willfully break the first commandment. Secondly you are taking the first commandment to say something that it did not historically mean. The commandment is a prohibition against the Baals. You make a good point, but it's pastoral one, not an exegetical one.

Lets look back at the beginning of the story. He obviously thought Christ was God because he asked Jesus what do I need to do to enter into life. Jesus answered and started quoting directly from the Ten Commandments . Here's the beginning of the story:

Matthew 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?”

This goes back to my point that the rich man knew about the commandments claimed he kept them from his youth, but wasn’t keeping all of them because he was breaking the first commandment Exodus 20:3 “You shall have no other gods before Me.

This does not say have no other Baals gods. It says no other gods which is anything you place above God. So I did not exegesis.

Is there a reason to suppose that the rich man (who my Pastor says is Mark) at this time knew Christ to be God? Such knowledge requires the Holy Spirit. Did Mark possess the Spirit?

Notice that Christ asks Mark,'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God'

Mark approached Christ as a rabbi, 'Good Teacher'. Rabbis were responsible for the salvation of their disciples . It's the same with monastics today. A potential disciple asking his spiritual father, 'what good thing shall I do to enter eternal life' is to be expected.

Also, while you are absolutely right that the first commandment can be interpreted to say, 'anything placed before God', contextually, the passage says, 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery' vs 1

But,
I'll meet you half way and concur that preferring his riches is breaking the command to 'love thy neighbor'.

Why do you think that there are two covenants, and with whom did Israel make each Covenant?

There is the Law of God, written personally by the finger of God that is a covenant of Ten (not nine, or eight) Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 God spoke His law to the Nation. God's commandments was placed inside the ark in the Most Holy in God's Temple. God had a Temple on earth and one in Heaven Revelations 11:19. God's law is perfect Psalms 19:7 and reflects the very character of our Savior and is eternal Matthew 5:17-19. Removing the laws of God- what does it really mean?. The law of Moses was written by Moses in a book Deut 31:24, 1 Cor 9:9, was added because of sin Gal 3:19, contained curses Deut 29:20-21, Gal 3:10. The law of Moses and God's commandments have always been separated, they are different covenants and serve different purposes. God's Ten Commandments are Universal and Eternal. The law of Moses that contained ordinances Eph 2:15 which had the sacrificial system- blood and food offerings ended with Christ as our perfect sacrifice. Hebrews 10, Col 2:14 not God's eternal commandments.

Interesting take. Who taught you this?

Thatgirloncfforums said:

Because you're confusing righteousness by the standard of the law with the righteousness that comes by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

You cannot have true faith and not believe what Jesus is saying. This is where I think you might be getting confused. You don't obey God's laws to be saved. You obey because you have faith in Jesus and believe and love Him with all our hearts and minds. We obey because though our faith we love Jesus with all our hearts and minds and want to believe and obey. How can you have faith in someone but do the opposite of what they ask? Obedience to the law is a fruit of our faith. It also how we demonstrate love to our Savior according to God. John 14:15, John 15:10, 1 John 5:3, Exodus 20:6

I agree. I think that the confusion stemmed from me not understanding why you were separating the Ten Commandments and Moses into two distinct Covenants.

Thatgirloncfforums said:

2 Corinthians 5 concerns martyrdom and repentance. James 2:10 is disciplinary. You are taking these verses out of context.

Let's take a look

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad

We will be judged by our works, it is very clear in scriptures Revelations 22:12 12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work

So there is nothing I am taking out of context.

I wasn't saying that we won't be judged by our works.

James 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; 9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.

Sorry these verses speak for themselves. We have an Advocate with Jesus so when we fall, seven times or as many as it takes "For a righteous man may fall seven times And rise again" rise again and overcome sin. We can gain Victory over sin. God's commandments are not burdensome 1 John 5:3. The churches that teach you this will have words of reckoning when Jesus comes Matthew 5:19

This is true. This is why Moses said: Do not be afraid….vs 20

Btw, It might be helpful to note, that I interpret Paul to say, 'the faithfulness of Christ', not 'faith in Christ'

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Is there a reason to suppose that the rich man (who my Pastor says is Mark) at this time knew Christ to be God? Such knowledge requires the Holy Spirit. Did Mark possess the Spirit?

Notice that Christ asks Mark,'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God'

Mark approached Christ as a rabbi, 'Good Teacher'. Rabbis were responsible for the salvation of their disciples . It's the same with monastics today. A potential disciple asking his spiritual father, 'what good thing shall I do to enter eternal life' is to be expected.

Also, while you are absolutely right that the first commandment can be interpreted to say, 'anything placed before God', contextually, the passage says, 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery' vs 1

But,
I'll meet you half way and concur that preferring his riches is breaking the command to 'love thy neighbor'.

Hi there!

Here’s my take:

Many at that time thought Jesus was the Messiah that was prophesied in the Old Testament scriptures. Jesus was healing people and many followed Jesus because they thought He was the Messiah. The rich man obvious knew about the commandments of God as stated in the scriptures. I disagree that he was breaking one of the greatest commandments to love your neighbor, but I do agree it would fall under “You should love the Lord with our your heart” which is demonstrated through keeping commandments 1-4. I do not believe the rich man had the Holy Spirit because if he did he would not have placed his “great possessions” over following Jesus. There are only two spirits and if your are not following God by default you are following the “other spirit”. Jesus says you are either with Me or against Me. I don’t see any reason why the rich man would be Mark. We never heard about this rich man again in scriptures but had he followed Jesus he may have been another disciple.

Interesting take. Who taught you this?


I agree. I think that the confusion stemmed from me not understanding why you were separating the Ten Commandments and Moses into two distinct Covenants.

I posted the scripture references, it comes right from the Bible .

Yes, those are two different covenants and many lump them into one but they serve two different purposes and I feel which is why many confuse the laws because they are lumped in together. For example here is a scripture that refers to the Ten Commandments:

1 John 5: 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

And here is a direct reference the law of Moses

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

See the difference and how contradictory that is? They are not contradictory because they are referring to two different covenants and sets of laws. God’s Ten Commandments reflect the very character of God and stand on a different foundation and are His moral laws that are eternal and universal, which are now written in our hearts and minds in the New Covenant. Hebrews 8:10, Jeremiah 31:33.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is there a reason to suppose that the rich man (who my Pastor says is Mark) at this time knew Christ to be God? Such knowledge requires the Holy Spirit. Did Mark possess the Spirit?

St. Mark is believed to have owned the house with the Cenacle, the upper room. There are two disputed sites, one favored by the Crusaders, with Gothic architecture, but the Jews claim it is the Tomb of David, and I agree, and the Muslims also claim it has some importance to them, with which I would be inclined to disagree, and a more credible location, the Syriac Orthodox Monastery of St. Mark.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I love little tidbits like this. It really helps to flesh out the biblical characters.

St. Mark is believed to have owned the house with the Cenacle, the upper room. There are two disputed sites, one favored by the Crusaders, with Gothic architecture, but the Jews claim it is the Tomb of David, and I agree, and the Muslims also claim it has some importance to them, with which I would be inclined to disagree, and a more credible location, the Syriac Orthodox Monastery of St. Mark.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

"Mary's roles"? Which are what? There is a LOT of disagreement there.

She was the Mother of Jesus who is fully Man and fully God. The God part did not originate with her.

 

[RDKirk]

What I am asking is, among believers of Sola Scriptura, (the Bible alone) who or what authority outside of the Bible, be it a Protestant or non-denominational church or sect determines what are the essential beliefs Bible Christians hold on too, and what are the non-essential beliefs? Pretty sure the Bible does not contain such a list.



Do you believe the Bible alone is sufficient as a sole rule of faith?



For Catholics, no. Would it be on the list of essentials for Protestants and non-denominationals?

Have a Blessed day!

What does "sole rule of faith" mean?

 

[RDKirk]

I'm satisfied by the tenets of the Apostle's Creed. I consider everything else a "disputable matter" (Romans 14).

 

[The Liturgist]

She was the Mother of Jesus who is fully Man and fully God. The God part did not originate with her.

However, because Jesus Christ was fully God, unless one subscribes to a Nestorian Christology, which is allowable under the Nicene Creed and thus the CF.com Statement of Faith, but which prevents one from claiming to be a Chalcedonian Christian, for example, the principle of communicatio idiomatum means that God became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and thus she was the Mother of God, as affirmed by Martin Luther and even John Calvin.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

What does "sole rule of faith" mean?

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm

 

[Daniel Marsh]

rth

 

[actionsub]

As a Catholic, I have asked some Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) Christian believers within this forum what are the essentials and non-essentials for a sole rule of faith, and have yet received a definitive answer. I have seen many bible believing Christians argue that it doesn't matter, that there are thousands upon thousands of different denominations/sects because these denominations/sects agree on the "essentials", and as long as there is conformity to these "essentials", the other differences in doctrines are extraneous or secondary.

However, I have found within this forum, if I were to ask one of these bible alone Christians what these "essentials" are, I'd get a slew of different answers. Why is that if these Sola Scripturist are going by the same Bible? So, I'd like to ask, what is the true list of essential and non-essential beliefs for believers of Sola Scriptura, and who or what entity of the Sola Scriptura believers has the authority to make such a list?

Have a Blessed day!

I'd have to go with The Apostles' Creed and/or The Nicene Creed. Even though both of these pre-dated the idea of modern Protestant denominations, there's nothing in them that is in dispute in the various Christian sects. (except for maybe the heirs of the Radical Reformation that deny the necessity of creeds period.)
Consider that the creeds were formulated with the aim of settling disputes over essentials and what they meant. Sticking with the original intent, this is what I'd look at.

 

[RDKirk]

(except for maybe the heirs of the Radical Reformation that deny the necessity of creeds period.)

Although even those people do not deny the elements themselves of the creeds.