Have your core beliefs ever changed?

[eNathans]

What other direct revelations of God are written by Inspiration of God's Spirit to man? Scripture is complete; NT fulfilling the OT.

I hope this isn't a new discounting of God's Holy words thru scripture.
And are you saying God isn't the Creator?

As I see you're seeking a debate (where I was just stating my beliefs that have changed) I'll go ahead and respond.

The NT is not complete, the OT and the NT combined are not complete. Do you mean you believe that the infinite knowledge of God can be summed up into a few books and letters? Heh. I understand that it sounds nice, I used to believe that as well. The Bible provides many of the fundimentals but does definatly not address clearly and fully every posible issue and every posible cirumstance to every human that ever existance since it was written until the last man on earth breaths his last. However I have no problem with people who do believe this. God still gives revelations today, prophecies, dreams, near death experiences, and things I probably don't even know of. God is an active God.

About evolution, I believe God used evolution as his natural process to achieve creation. I'm sure there are more minor details that I don't understand about exactly when and where God intervened, but I accept common ancestry.

For instance, you were created through a natural process of 9 months of development in the womb with no intervention on God's part at all, but you still believe God "created" you even though you know he did so through a completly natural process. Just because one acceps the natural processes doesn't mean you have to deny that it's still ultimatly a creation from God.

This is one of the core things that have changed about my beliefs and I understand that I'm a minority because most Christians deny evolution and most evolutionists deny God.

 

[Nadiine]

As I see you're seeking a debate (where I was just stating my beliefs that have changed) I'll go ahead and respond.

I haven't read past this...
no I'm not seeking debate, I'm seeking clarifications to what I view as
quite vague concepts.
I really couldn't understand what you meant by the changes.

 

[eNathans]

I haven't read past this...
no I'm not seeking debate, I'm seeking clarifications to what I view as
quite vague concepts.
I really couldn't understand what you meant by the changes.

Well that's quite rude, asking a question then not reading my response. I guess there's not much more to say.

 

[Nadiine]

Well that's quite rude, asking a question then not reading my response. I guess there's not much more to say.

that's a pretty stiff judgment...

my husband came home early and I have food in the oven & dinner I'm starting, I don't have time to go thru it right now,
Im sorry if you feel slighted.

If I can't read it tonight (I'm usually not online past 3-4pm) I'll read it in the morning. =)

 

[BereanTodd]

Well you question is specific to core Christian belief, but I will give more a overall view of my life.

Birth to college - I was an atheist, reared in an agnostic home. Towards the end I moved towards agnosticism, and from there began seeking "something".

Early adult life- I moved from:
1. seeker, playing around with wicca, druidic paganism and other "spiritualities"
2. came to saving faith in Christ - at this point I would have been a moderate Christian. Conservative in many views, but liberal in others, with many unchanged behaviors and thought patterns from my unsaved life.

Spiritual (and physical) maturity- in my mid-20's I began to get my life straitened out and became a conservative, evangelical. I felt the calling to ministry and began a path that has carried me through the last 8 years. In that tim I have earned an undergraduate degree in Christian Ministry and Biblical Studies, and am now working on my Masters of Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. I have in that time (more pertinent to this question) had the following shifts in my theology:

1. semi-dispensational calvinistic baptist. This was my starting point. I was at first not well versed in dispensationalism but it was the basic belief of my churches to that point in my life, so I did hold it.

2. Towards the end of my undergraduate study I began to have a crisis in my faith. Not my faith in Christ but in my theological understandings. I denounced dispensationalism, though I didn't know what was a better answer. I searched and for a time held to a form of amillenial reformed belief.

3. That movement though did not satisfy me and I began to drift back to something at least closer to dispensationalism. As I did so I also began to connect to the Hebrew roots of my faith and for a time identified myself as with the Messianic Jewish movement.

4. Finally, I came back full circle to where I began. I would now clasify myself as a conservative, evangelical, calvinistic dispensationalist. I do have great respect for the Hebrew roots of our faith, and I do 'honor' the feasts though I do not wholly keep them.

As far as churches go, the majority of my saved life has been spent in the southern baptist church, though I have served on staff at non-denominational churches. I do not identify myself denominationally, I do not like denominations frankly. My wife says that I should start my own. "Bapti-todd-acostal-ism"

Whatever, I am now utterly comfortable in my beliefs and do not forsee any future movements, but I would not preclude them either.

 

[Floatingaxe]

I was fortunate to have found Christ at age 10, so my core beliefs were set early, having been brought up by godly parents and taught by godly teachers. Even though I had a time of rebellion in my late teens and early twenties, my core beliefs about God were not disrupted.

God has proven Himself over and over to be a faithful Father and friend, and His Word true. My beliefs have only built up and deepened, as they have been established on truth, on the Rock, Jesus Christ.

​

 

[Nadiine]

As I see you're seeking a debate (where I was just stating my beliefs that have changed) I'll go ahead and respond.

The NT is not complete, the OT and the NT combined are not complete. Do you mean you believe that the infinite knowledge of God can be summed up into a few books and letters? Heh. I understand that it sounds nice, I used to believe that as well.

What's more disturbing is people who want to ADD what's not in the bible - into the bible - as if they create their own doctrines to believe when scripture doesn't go there or support what they believe either.

We have to be careful about adding or taking away to the Bible.
BOTH are damaging in different ways.

And yes, the NT IS complete as to what God chose to relay and share with us by way of truth. Are we to ADD revelations?
This is what the Mormon church has done - claiming that God continues to give us new revelation (often contradicting previous 'revelations' given by their previous elders).

So I'd have to ask, if someone came up with another "testament" to the Bible claiming it's another revelation of God (like the Mormons have done), are you open to that possibly being from God?

The Bible provides many of the fundimentals but does definatly not address clearly and fully every posible issue and every posible cirumstance to every human that ever existance since it was written until the last man on earth breaths his last. However I have no problem with people who do believe this. God still gives revelations today, prophecies, dreams, near death experiences, and things I probably don't even know of. God is an active God.

Actually it does provide all the guidance we need - it doesn't have to go into every single sin or situation - it goes into motive and principles.

If there's a principle about not stumbling others and avoiding even the appearance of evil, then if something is seriously questionable, then it can fall into that instruction.
Also James 4:17 speaks of this directly for each person:
James 4:17
Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it,
to him it is sin.

Biblical principles do handle most everything, and what they don't cover specifically, James 4:17 and personal conviction by God's Spirit do cover.
And if they violate their conscience in sin, then God will deal with it.
Too many today act like they have no clue what's sinful - when they actually do.
Rom. 1:18-32, Rom 2:!4-15

About evolution, I believe God used evolution as his natural process to achieve creation. I'm sure there are more minor details that I don't understand about exactly when and where God intervened, but I accept common ancestry.

For instance, you were created through a natural process of 9 months of development in the womb with no intervention on God's part at all,

K, well I'm not going to argue creation evolution - but there is also plenty of solid evidence that denies that evolutionary process as well.

Thankfully salvation doesn't rest on knowing HOW God created everything.
My only concern is in where people go towards evolution seem to go later in their spiritual interpretations .

 

[56Bluesman]

What other direct revelations of God are written by Inspiration of God's Spirit to man? Scripture is complete; NT fulfilling the OT.

I hope this isn't a new discounting of God's Holy words thru scripture.
And are you saying God isn't the Creator?

Not at all! Read my post again please. I also believe in the integrity of the scriptures as the ' Word Of God!' You may want to check out a website I believe is called 'Reasons.org'. I'm not allowed to post direct links yet as a newbie. It explains my position in greater detail and does nothing to destroy the integrity of the faith or undermine our glorious Creator. I utterly reject the notions of materialistic evolution as held near and dear by the likes of Richard Dawkins and other scientists that promote what is really philosphical atheism wrapped in supposedly scientific clothing.

 

[eNathans]

What's more disturbing is people who want to ADD what's not in the bible - into the bible - as if they create their own doctrines to believe when scripture doesn't go there or support what they believe either.

We have to be careful about adding or taking away to the Bible.
BOTH are damaging in different ways.

And yes, the NT IS complete as to what God chose to relay and share with us by way of truth. Are we to ADD revelations?
This is what the Mormon church has done - claiming that God continues to give us new revelation (often contradicting previous 'revelations' given by their previous elders).

So I'd have to ask, if someone came up with another "testament" to the Bible claiming it's another revelation of God (like the Mormons have done), are you open to that possibly being from God?

I agree with you in that the NT is complete "enough" for what most people need to know. Now you ask, are we to "ADD revelations?" We do not add revelations, for if we do it's out of our own carnality and not from God. However, if God so chooses to give a revelation he will. This is scriptural, Act 2:17:

'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams.

I believe in these things. As for the revelations that the mormans claim to have, I cannot speak for or against those revelations becuase I have not looked into them. I wouldn't want to be a hypocrite. But my general philosophy is that modern day revelations should not spark a new religion or denomination. The church is already way too divided as it is. For instance, I'm thankful that Rick Warren hasn't yet created a new domimination of followers as with what happend with Martin Luther King. But anyway, yes I do believe that God is active today in prophecy, healing, revelations, etc, but I think the days of creating new bibles is at it's end and shouldn't be done.

Actually it does provide all the guidance we need - it doesn't have to go into every single sin or situation - it goes into motive and principles.

If there's a principle about not stumbling others and avoiding even the appearance of evil, then if something is seriously questionable, then it can fall into that instruction.
Also James 4:17 speaks of this directly for each person:

Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it,
to him it is sin.

Biblical principles do handle most everything, and what they don't cover specifically, James 4:17 and personal conviction by God's Spirit do cover.
And if they violate their conscience in sin, then God will deal with it.
Too many today act like they have no clue what's sinful - when they actually do.
Rom. 1:18-32, Rom 2:!4-15

This is what I mean, James does say that a lot of what sin comes down to is your own conviction by the Holy Spirit. This is God speaking to us in the present day.

K, well I'm not going to argue creation evolution - but there is also plenty of solid evidence that denies that evolutionary process as well.

Thankfully salvation doesn't rest on knowing HOW God created everything.
My only concern is in where people go towards evolution seem to go later in their spiritual interpretations .

Well you say there's solid evidence that denies the evolutionary proccess, but I'm sure there isn't. I don't think there is any real need to debate this because our salvation does not depend on our views on creation or our knowledge of science.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Tell me, did Martin Luther King start a denomination?

 

[eNathans]

Tell me, did Martin Luther King start a denomination?

It's my understanding (from my mom) that Martin Luther King did not want to start a new denomination, and he actually opposed it, but it eventually happend (perhaps after his death?).

 

[Cassidy]

I grew up believing that salvation can be lost and had it drummed into my head from when i was small.

I also grew up believing that one must speak in tongues to be saved.

I believe neither of those now

 

[Floatingaxe]

It's my understanding (from my mom) that Martin Luther King did not want to start a new denomination, and he actually opposed it, but it eventually happend (perhaps after his death?).

What denomination was that?

 

[Nadiine]

I grew up believing that salvation can be lost and had it drummed into my head from when i was small.

I also grew up believing that one must speak in tongues to be saved.

I believe neither of those now

While I also believe OSAS, the issue lies in IF a person is actually
born again to begin with.

We're warned to examine ourselves (unbiasely I'd add) and check it against the backdrop
of scripture teaching that defines God's commands and teachings - things
that define a genuine believer.

OSAS is supported in scripture- but so is the definition of an actual
believer. People preaching false doctrines & supporting sin aren't
practicing Christianity, they're practicing a self created religion they're labeling "Christian".

They may well hear Mat. 7:21-23

 

[SmileToday]

As I've learned and grew in my faith, yes on the way my belief's changed, I have been lost and have gained indepth knowledge now. I am still studying and willing to open up and listen to others, the more we grow in our faith, the more we learn.

 

[eNathans]

Floatingaxe: My correction, it was Martin Luther (1500s, Germany) not Martin Luther King Jr's father (which is what I thought). His followers started the Lutheran denomination.

 

[Floatingaxe]

Floatingaxe: My correction, it was Martin Luther (1500s, Germany) not Martin Luther King Jr's father (which is what I thought). His followers started the Lutheran denomination.

OK. I thought that was the case.

In my view, even though the Lutheran denomination follows after his views, I believe that Luther did a marvellous thing for God by creating not a denomination, but enablement for the Body of Christ to know God personally and find freedom in Him, and lose their entrapment in religion.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

I didn't vote in the poll cause I'm not non denominational.. But I used to be. Some of my core beliefs have changed. For example, I believed in OSAS, that Communion is a symbol, ..some others.. but those beliefs changed later on for me.

God bless

 

[MoNiCa4316]

OK. I thought that was the case.

In my view, even though the Lutheran denomination follows after his views, I believe that Luther did a marvellous thing for God by creating not a denomination, but enablement for the Body of Christ to know God personally and find freedom in Him, and lose their entrapment in religion.

Floatingaxe, in your opinion, did Christians before Luther know God personally?

I'm not intending to debate

 

[Floatingaxe]

Floatingaxe, in your opinion, did Christians before Luther know God personally?

I'm not intending to debate

Not many. They could only confess to a priest and were not allowed to possess scripture. They were controlled by the Catholic Church, which had perverted scripture and added to it with false interpretation and newfangled traditions and idol worship.