Hashin it out

[Time2BCounted]

You all constantly pour out your opinions and doctrine and then throw a hissy-fit when someone disagrees.

The bad thing is, you all don't realize what you are doing. What you are calling for is the moral majority to be expressed and any views contradictory to it will be labeled 'debate'.

If, for example, I started a topic with a particular doctrinal premise- it would be argued and then I'd be accused of subversion in the community by starting debate.

SA
We dropped our conversation last night after you said that you believe the scriptures are our infallable source, which i agreed with. But when i asked you then to take that infallable source and draw for me an outline of 'what must i do to be saved, you disappeared until it was burried.

So if youre wanting to be constructive, we know you disagree, give us an outline on what must i do to be saved, from the scripture.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

wrong again, but then.... i'm used to that now.
IT ISN'T A DEBATE AREA. they keep telling you that & you keep treating it as such.
Get a clue ok? And if YOU were starting something, YOU would be writing it your way.... that's how it works.
They are in a process - lighten up.
I guess if you don't get every change you want, they're NARROW & whatever else you'de tack on...

This is absolutely alarming what I'm seeing here and the obsessiveness of it all.

Nadiine, you are allowed to debate in the main forum.

Of course I'm going to demand a change on something that denies my faith and tells me I'm not a Christian.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

SA
We dropped our conversation last night after you said that you believe the scriptures are our infallable source, which i agreed with. But when i asked you then to take that infallable source and draw for me an outline of 'what must i do to be saved, you disappeared until it was burried.

So if youre wanting to be constructive, we know you disagree, give us an outline on what must i do to be saved, from the scripture.

I'm not God, so I can't say.

 

[Melethiel]

So if youre wanting to be constructive, we know you disagree, give us an outline on what must i do to be saved, from the scripture.

I must do nothing. It is ALL God's work. Your commentary borders on works-righteousness.

 

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

 

[Time2BCounted]

[/SIZE][/COLOR]I must do nothing. It is ALL God's work. Your commentary borders on works-righteousness.

Is there commentary in the present definition on the faq page?

Is the new definition closer to the truth?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

A lot of it. The worst is denying the baptism has a role in the salvation process.

But the definition doesn't do that...it simply acknowledges that there are Christians who believe that it is not necessary for salvation. There is some biblical evidence that this is true - we don't know if the thief on the cross was baptized, do we? Yet he would be with Jesus that day in paradise because he believed.

So that's not the only thing, what more is there? I really am curious about what is so bad about this definition. I'm not thrilled with it, but I don't see it going against major CHRISTIAN doctrine.

 

[Nadiine]

[/size][/color]I must do nothing. It is ALL God's work. Your commentary borders on works-righteousness.

hey, drop the personal slams -- WE SERVE THE LORD, AND IT TAKES WORK ON OUR PART TOO - AS HE LEADS.

Let's get back to the process ok? That's unecessary

 

[Nadiine]

**puts on black & white Ref shirt**

*blows whistle*

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

But the definition doesn't do that...it simply acknowledges that there are Christians who believe that it is not necessary for salvation. There is some biblical evidence that this is true - we don't know if the thief on the cross was baptized, do we? Yet he would be with Jesus that day in paradise because he believed.

So that's not the only thing, what more is there? I really am curious about what is so bad about this definition. I'm not thrilled with it, but I don't see it going against major CHRISTIAN doctrine.

No, there is commentary (in the proposal) above the note that the things below aren't part of the salvation process.

 

[Nadiine]

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, really, like I said before, all one MUST do is believe in Jesus Christ as his savior, right? So it could be said that not all those points are salvation points.

Like, it's not a salvation point as to how one is baptized. Full immersion baptisms aren't better or more saving than head sprinkles and vice versa. So the METHOD of baptism isn't a salvation issue.

I do agree that I think the commentary needs to go, but I don't think the definition in and of itself moves against any particular denom's doctrine, especially given that most of it has scriptural backing.

But, I'm also not a theologian. I think I'll pass this on to my husband, who is, and get his opinion of it.

 

[Time2BCounted]

Well, really, like I said before, all one MUST do is believe in Jesus Christ as his savior, right? So it could be said that not all those points are salvation points.

Like, it's not a salvation point as to how one is baptized. Full immersion baptisms aren't better or more saving than head sprinkles and vice versa. So the METHOD of baptism isn't a salvation issue.

I do agree that I think the commentary needs to go, but I don't think the definition in and of itself moves against any particular denom's doctrine, especially given that most of it has scriptural backing.

But, I'm also not a theologian. I think I'll pass this on to my husband, who is, and get his opinion of it.

Can one deny the diety of Christ... just outright reject it in spite of the word, and still be saved?

 

[Melethiel]

Is there commentary in the present definition on the faq page?

Is the new definition closer to the truth?

Better a vague definition than a definition that is wrong, or that only describes a small subset of beliefs.

hey, drop the personal slams -- WE SERVE THE LORD, AND IT TAKES WORK ON OUR PART TOO - AS HE LEADS.

Let's get back to the process ok? That's unecessary

I wasn't being personal. Read it as a vague "your."
And I was expressing a solid Lutheran viewpoint. Do you see my point now? You're yelling at me for expressing a Lutheran viewpoint - while there is a Reformed/evangelical commentary in the definition that I disagree with.

I've already stated what I think needs to go and be changed.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Can one deny the diety of Christ... just outright reject it in spite of the word, and still be saved?

In my personal opinion I would say no. And I honestly don't know of any Christians who reject the deity of Christ, either, so...maybe I'm just sheltered.

 

[Joykins]

So you either have to WATER IT ALL DOWN, or make it SO vague & wavering, that there's hardly any point in defining it!
This is unreal to me. IT'S SICKENING.
then we're supposed to be the ones who LEAD THE LOST TO TRUTH OF GOD?
which God? which truth? which church (if any at all)? which salvation? which doctrines matter?

The fact is, when you make a definition you have to describe *everything* that falls under the umbrella--you have to craft a definition that Catholics, Orthodox, SDA, Baptists, liberal Protestants and Protestant fundamentalists-- *All * agree describes them. Otherwise as a definition it is no good. One of the reasons for a definition is to distinguish Christians from those who follow completely different kinds of religions, and crafting a definition should concentrate on that.

Right now the 2nd section in the FAQ describes Nicene beliefs, Nicene/Trinitarian Christianity being the *most common* (but not only) expression of Christian belief. The Trinitarian controversies of the early church (some of which endure today) stand witness to the fact that Christendom has not always been (and still is not) unanimous on the matter.

I don't think it's possible to create a *definition* that includes all that may be necessary for salvation. I do think the link to "become a Christian" presents an adequate starting-place for those who God is calling to follow Him.

Any insertion to the FAQ crafted here that cannot get support from Catholics, Orthodox, liberals, and all flavors of Protestant has a very small chance of being inserted into the FAQ. By discussing this only in a small, like-minded group, you may be torpedoing its chances of being accepted in the forum at large.

I'm sure you didn't want my 2 cents but there they are anyway.

 

[stumpjumper]

Can one deny the diety of Christ... just outright reject it in spite of the word, and still be saved?

That's a question that none of us should even attempt to answer.

"All horses are animals but not all animals are horses" is what my completely orthodox Lutheran Pastor would say.

We can state that God has promised us salvation through what he has done for us and that this is a free gift. It can be rejected for sure but it is not up to us to determine who in all actuality has rejected it.

We can speak of the hope that God gives us and that promises that God has made for his people in the affirmative but that does not mean that we are called upon to determine who will not accept that promise and gift.

St. Paul said it best:

[BIBLE]Romans 11:32-34[/BIBLE]

 

[Nadiine]

The fact is, when you make a definition you have to describe *everything* that falls under the umbrella--you have to craft a definition that Catholics, Orthodox, SDA, Baptists, liberal Protestants and Protestant fundamentalists-- *All * agree describes them. Otherwise as a definition it is no good. One of the reasons for a definition is to distinguish Christians from those who follow completely different kinds of religions, and crafting a definition should concentrate on that.

Right, and that's all great with me actually. My issue is where it comes to the inspiration of scripture - that we at least adhere to a BIBLE... that's when I got testy & frustrated with what I was reading as input...

I don't think we should have to go as far as saying "some Christians deny the Bible is truth" or "some Christians don't adhere to the scriptures being inspired by God" kind of language....
some things should just be a given imo. As to WHICH manuscripts/bibles that doesn't bother me in the least.
I'm not strict about that, but I AM strict on at least adhering to SOMETHING authoratative as to the OT scriptures & NT epistles from eyewitnesses who walked with and/or experienced God firsthand.

Most everything we know of God today is thru that Word we have - even those who oppose it's inspiration use it to base what they know about God on - or to at least support SOME beliefs they carry (re. salvation, love of God/love of others, equality of humanity, created by God... etc.)
That's my only contention is when that came up. I'm more than fine with appeasing valid CHRISTIAN denoms. in this effort!!!.

I'm sure you didn't want my 2 cents but there they are anyway.

No I don't just shut people with differing opinions out - my issue is that SOME in this process (or attempting to weigh in a certain sect) I don't find even adhere to the central issues of Christianity - I'm of the persuasion that we're having to appease [within the definition to cover their beliefs/or lack thereof] even those that I find of questionable belief.
As always I cannot elaborate in details - only generals.

Anyways, I'm fine trying to appease a wide range of denoms. I'm NOT fine trying to appease people that I question are Christians due to the blatant rejection of such imperative doctrines that MAKE Christianity what it is by scripture definition of a Christian.

What I'm seeing is, "I claim Im' a Christian, THEREFORE, I AM ONE BECUZ I SAY SO. SO MAKE YOUR DEFINITIONS FIT ME & MY BELIEFS even tho they're contrary to mainstream Christianity and scripture.

I hope you see my points here. I'm not being ornary & unreasonable, I'm asking that we not have to define everybody as a "Christian" becuz at that point, there's no sense in having ANY definition - it is anything anyone wants it to be.
That's all I'm pointing out here.
The other thread (not this one after it got moved) was horrendous and pretty shocking to me what came up as to this issue.

Thanks for hearing me out & your post.

 

[Time2BCounted]

In my personal opinion I would say no. And I honestly don't know of any Christians who reject the deity of Christ, either, so...maybe I'm just sheltered.

There are many people right here on this board who lay claim to the title of Christian, who do openly reject and denounce the diety of Christ.

I agree with you, to denounce His diety is to denounce the true Christ. These are just things we want to clear up in the faq definition as it presently stands

 

[stumpjumper]

You also have to affirm his full humanity as well if you want to be consistent