The Basics of the Christian Faith

[Crazy Liz]

One thing to remember here, I don't think I made it quite clear, when I am talking about Evangelicals I do not mean evangelistic Protestants.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but originally Anabaptists were not evangelical. Now most are but some aren't. In order to be Evangelical, you must accept the creeds and the points that JVAC listed.

Actually, I always thought the anabaptists were very evangelical. They based their beliefs more on scripture (especially the gospels) than many of the less radical reformers.

However, if that's the way you want to define Evangelical (and no, I do not think it means the same thing as evangelistic) I'll stand aside. (I'm sure Friend Seebs will understand this phrase , even if nobody else does.)

 

[Lotar]

I see what you're trying to do, and I agree that it's valuable; I just question whether calling it "the basics of the Christian faith" is the right thing to do when it's probably more clearly described as "the basics of reformed theology".

You're not reading our posts, you're as bad as orthodoxy

rnmomof7 is the first person here to reply that is reformed. These are the basics of the evangelical faith, whether Reformed, Lutheran, or Armimian; if you want me to put it that way. Ofcourse I believe the basics of the evangelical faith to be the basics of the Christian faith, whether some people have the basics wrong is besides the point.

I knew that man's sinful nature was going to be the biggest hangup here. Yes, even Arminius accepted that fact, because it is one of the basic premises behind faith alone. Most people here would probably say they don't believe it and their church doesn't believe it, but if they went and actually researched it, 99% would find out that their church does hold that position.

You ofcourse are a different breed altogether.

 

[Lotar]

Actually, I always thought the anabaptists were very evangelical. They based their beliefs more on scripture (especially the gospels) than many of the less radical reformers.

However, if that's the way you want to define Evangelical (and no, I do not think it means the same thing as evangelistic) I'll stand aside. (I'm sure Friend Seebs will understand this phrase , even if nobody else does.)

See, that's the missunderstanding. You see the defining trait of Evangelical to be sola scriptura. The word evangelical tends to get thrown around now, but historically it refers to what I pointed out earlier.
Whether their beliefs were based more on scripture is open to debate, though not here.

Thanks for understanding my not wanting to turn this into a debate.

 

[Lotar]

There is not as much emphasis on basic doctrinal teaching in the churches any more. As a result many christians can not articulate their doctrine or they can not recognize error when they hear it.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

And it continues:

2Tim 4:3 NIV

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit thier own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what thier itching ears want to hear.

So true, and so sad.

 

[seebs]

You're not reading our posts, you're as bad as orthodoxy

I may have misunderstood.

rnmomof7 is the first person here to reply that is reformed. These are the basics of the evangelical faith, whether Reformed, Lutheran, or Armimian; if you want me to put it that way. Ofcourse I believe the basics of the evangelical faith to be the basics of the Christian faith, whether some people have the basics wrong is besides the point.

I think that referring to them as the basics of the evangelical faith is important; it omits the implication that people who don't agree with them aren't "real Christians", which is a recurring problem we have around here.

You ofcourse are a different breed altogether.

Yup. Which, I think, is a good thing on the whole. If God had only wanted one position held on issues of faith, He would have stopped after the first person.

 

[rnmomof7]

I see what you're trying to do, and I agree that it's valuable; I just question whether calling it "the basics of the Christian faith" is the right thing to do when it's probably more clearly described as "the basics of reformed theology".

Seebs all Christians hold to the basics of faith , the nature of God , the plan of salvation etc.

There are people in churches today that have no idea what a creed is or what it means.

BTW The reformation was all "calvinism" even before Calvin. Luther was a predestinarian . So in a sense all Protestant doctrine is Reform. But we all amen the same creed. In actuality we have far more in common that we have differences .

Which of the Solas of the reformation do you have a problem with?

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

I would politely ask that those who are not orthodox Protestants, ie Evangelical/Reformed, not to debate the contents of this thread.

Lotar, as you have titled the thread "Basics of the Christian faith" that is not a reasonable request. Had you titled it "Basics of the Evangelical/Reformed faith" it would be, but as it is you are misrepresenting a small segment of Christianity as if it was the whole thing.

Essentially your arguments with Crazy Liz above appear to be an attempt by yourself to enforce political correctness.

 

[seebs]

Seebs all Christians hold to the basics of faith , the nature of God , the plan of salvation etc.

Agreed. However, they may disagree on all sorts of interpretations and additional theology on it.

There are people in churches today that have no idea what a creed is or what it means.

Yes. On the other hand, there's churches who know exactly what a creed is and don't use them. I go to such a church. It's not that you can find many Friends who wouldn't, if asked, agree with the Nicene Creed. It's that Friends generally don't think that words are capable of describing God accurately enough; in the end, we'd rather risk fellowship with some people who misunderstand God than risk excluding someone who understands God just fine, but doesn't use the words the same way we do.

BTW The reformation was all "calvinism" even before Calvin. Luther was a predestinarian . So in a sense all Protestant doctrine is Reform. But we all amen the same creed. In actuality we have far more in common that we have differences.

Not all Lutherans today accept predestination in the sense that most Calvinists mean it.

Which of the Solas of the reformation do you have a problem with?

Depending on how you define them, none or all, or anywhere inbetween. The problem is that they're soundbites describing very, very, complicated issues. In most cases, the "simple" explanation strikes me as clearly wrong, but what people describe when they explain what they really mean is often very similar to my beliefs. I honestly can't say whether or not I agree with what some people mean by these things, because the words are not precise enough.

From the list earlier in the thread:

* Sola Scriptura

I believe the Bible to be "infallible", but I use that term much more loosely than most evangelicals do; for instance, I don't care if it has minor historical errors or contradictions. I care whether or not it leads people towards God. I believe that there may exist other sources which are just as reliable in leading people towards God, or which will usefully inform interpretation of Scripture. In particular, I think that Scripture is essentially irrelevant unless you have the Holy Spirit, and I think that the Holy Spirit can lead you into all truth even if you have never seen a Bible in your life. I also have serious concerns about the inability of Christianity as a whole to agree on what books exactly are Scripture.

So, in general, I don't accept this, but I don't necessarily accept some of the popular alternatives, either.

* Sola Fide

Yes and no. I think a lot of people interpret this in a way which is clearly wrong, but understood correctly, I believe it to be true. People often get very dogmatic about removing any hint of action on the part of the believer from the formula, and I believe that is incorrect.

* Sola Gratia

The same issues apply here as with sola fide.

* Soli Deo Gloria

This was inexplicably missing from the list. If I understand it correctly, it is something that Friends have often taken further than many others, by eliminating the bogus distinction between "religious life" and "the rest of life". Your whole life should be lived the way some people think you behave in church on Sundays. When you open your mouth, you should be thinking whether what you say will glorify God; if not, you should probably not say it.

* Sinful Nature

Once again, it depends on terminology. Total depravity is traditionally rejected, but the existence of sin in human nature is not.

I did some googling on these, and the pages I found on "reformed theology" had different lists, with between four and five points, and not always the same five points. "sinful nature" wasn't in any of them as a motto of the reformation. "solus christus" was in several, so...

* Solus Christus

Yet another thing that people define very, very, differently. One site says that solus christos (spelled differently) means that Jesus must be the center of your faith, rather than other aspects of religious experience, such as emotional involvement, dogmatism, or community. Other sites give other interpretations.

I can't find a consistent enough summary of what people mean by this to form an opinion on it. The disagreement on which pages upon pages of text should follow from these two words is fairly surprising to me, really; I thought Reformed Theology was a bit more consistently defined.

 

[seebs]

Lotar, as you have titled the thread "Basics of the Christian faith" that is not a reasonable request. Had you titled it "Basics of the Evangelical/Reformed faith" it would be, but as it is you are misrepresenting a small segment of Christianity as if it was the whole thing.

Essentially your arguments with Crazy Liz above appear to be an attempt by yourself to enforce political correctness.

While I am sympathetic to your concern about the thread title, I think Lotar has clarified things, and given that, I think it is reasonable for the thread to remain focused on the basics of the evangelical faith, which seem to be essentially Reformed Theology.

I do have some small concerns about the tendency for people to get caught up in the debates within Christianity; I think Paul warned us about saying we are of one person or another, rather than of Christ. He said "one sayeth, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos", but I don't really see any difference between that and "one sayeth, I am of Calvin; and another, I am of Rome". Either we are of Christ, or we are not. The rest is idle speculation and recreational discussions about things we don't fully understand.

 

[Lotar]

Well, I think it's safe to say that the point of this thread is shot.


I don't really know whether to laugh or cry. It shows how little people actually know of the evangelical faith, that they believe the sinful nature of man to be essentially Reformed Theology. It was the basic premise behind sola fide and sola gratia, which is why those positions are so often undermind on this board, because people don't realize this. There are three major evangelical beliefs on this subject, Reformed, Lutheran, and Arminian. All three theological systems accept this point, how they relate it to election and free will is where they differ.

Also, the sinful nature was a major point of the Reformation, but it was one with sola gratia and sola fide. It was Calvin who later split it out into a seperate point to make his case for his 5 points, so it would be natural that reformed sites would be the ones to appear. The significance of this point to the Reformation is shown by the fact that the Councle of Trent declared an anathema upon it.

 

[rnmomof7]

Agreed. However, they may disagree on all sorts of interpretations and additional theology on it.



Yes. On the other hand, there's churches who know exactly what a creed is and don't use them. I go to such a church. It's not that you can find many Friends who wouldn't, if asked, agree with the Nicene Creed. It's that Friends generally don't think that words are capable of describing God accurately enough; in the end, we'd rather risk fellowship with some people who misunderstand God than risk excluding someone who understands God just fine, but doesn't use the words the same way we do.

I know , it is sad. Today the aim of the church seems to be to fill the pews instead of maturing the saints.
You know seebs there is an old saying that applies here. The only thing in the middle of the road is road kill. The churches that try to please everyone in the name if fellowship will find that in-spite of them God will move them to a teaching church .

Churches like Willowbrook aim their services at non believers , what is interesting is they may get saved there..but they soon move to neighboring Bible churches. One specific church has a great preacher and they have grown by leaps and bounds.

Not all Lutherans today accept predestination in the sense that most Calvinists mean it.

I think the Missouri Synod is about the most conservative of the church .
But as a generalization I would say that they tend to be more Armenian but I think they hold to Baptismal regeneration (showing some total depravity inclinations)

Depending on how you define them, none or all, or anywhere inbetween. The problem is that they're soundbites describing very, very, complicated issues. In most cases, the "simple" explanation strikes me as clearly wrong, but what people describe when they explain what they really mean is often very similar to my beliefs. I honestly can't say whether or not I agree with what some people mean by these things, because the words are not precise enough.

I think that was my point:>)
Most non Catholics can take them and with very little adaptation in definition accept them .

From the list earlier in the thread:

* Sola Scriptura

I believe the Bible to be "infallible", but I use that term much more loosely than most evangelicals do; for instance, I don't care if it has minor historical errors or contradictions. I care whether or not it leads people towards God. I believe that there may exist other sources which are just as reliable in leading people towards God, or which will usefully inform interpretation of Scripture. In particular, I think that Scripture is essentially irrelevant unless you have the Holy Spirit, and I think that the Holy Spirit can lead you into all truth even if you have never seen a Bible in your life. I also have serious concerns about the inability of Christianity as a whole to agree on what books exactly are Scripture.

We agree. The Bible is inherent in that it contains all the information needed for salvation . I would say only the original autographs are "infallible ". Most of the texts that do not agree were scribe related or small geographic errors that have no relevance .

I agree that the Bible is written for believer and is foolishness to non believers. It has to be read under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

People do not need to "see"the bible to be saved..but they need to hear the gospel. There are men saved in China that have never seen the written word , but they hear the memorized book of John .

The bible is clear that faith comes from hearing and hearing from the word of God . That is the method designed by God.

The variance of scripture does not concern me at all. All that is necessary to be saved in in there .The Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth

So, in general, I don't accept this, but I don't necessarily accept some of the popular alternatives, either.

See we are not as far as you would think.

* Sola Fide

Yes and no. I think a lot of people interpret this in a way which is clearly wrong, but understood correctly, I believe it to be true. People often get very dogmatic about removing any hint of action on the part of the believer from the formula, and I believe that is incorrect.

This could be a debate guess ..But we agree that the only thing that saved us was the grace of God. We did not deserve it .
It is the order of salvation that is in question ..so we do have some difference here ..but not 100%

* Sola Gratia

The same issues apply here as with sola fide.

I do not think you mean to infer that we can work our way to salvation right? But rather that God in his mercy saved us by grace.
Again it is the order that is the sticking point

* Soli Deo Gloria

This was inexplicably missing from the list. If I understand it correctly, it is something that Friends have often taken further than many others, by eliminating the bogus distinction between "religious life" and "the rest of life". Your whole life should be lived the way some people think you behave in church on Sundays. When you open your mouth, you should be thinking whether what you say will glorify God; if not, you should probably not say it.

I read this differently (I do not disagree with what you wrote , I just see a simpler meaning..all the glory for our salvation rest with God ..So all the glory goes to Him..who saved us when we were yet sinners and did not deserve His grace..[/quote]

* Sinful Nature

Once again, it depends on terminology. Total depravity is traditionally rejected, but the existence of sin in human nature is not.

I did some googling on these, and the pages I found on "reformed theology" had different lists, with between four and five points, and not always the same five points. "sinful nature" wasn't in any of them as a motto of the reformation. "solus christus" was in several, so...[/quote]

Theses were the cry of the Reformation, but there was no mention of the sin nature.

Total depravity is a part of the Tulip

* Solus Christus

Yet another thing that people define very, very, differently. One site says that solus christos (spelled differently) means that Jesus must be the center of your faith, rather than other aspects of religious experience, such as emotional involvement, dogmatism, or community. Other sites give other interpretations.

I can't find a consistent enough summary of what people mean by this to form an opinion on it. The disagreement on which pages upon pages of text should follow from these two words is fairly surprising to me, really; I thought Reformed Theology was a bit more consistently defined.

I have always hear the Christ alone to mean that we are not saved by a church (think reformation) or any tradition or sacrament or any work of our own, but only by Christ .

As I look at this post I do not see us a world apart do you?

I have always believed that it is the hunger for the word of God,and the desire to rightly divide the word of God ,that we find in the saved , that lead to these debates. We contend for the faith when we "argue" over the definition of one word in scripture..because we view every word that proceeds from the mouth of God as precious.

That is a part of the fruit of our salvation.

I love to be made to defend my position . I never go away without learning something new (and I suspect the same is true of you). It is fruit ..fruit drawing is life from the vine

Praise God for that !!

 

[rnmomof7]

Well, I think it's safe to say that the point of this thread is shot.


I don't really know whether to laugh or cry. It shows how little people actually know of the evangelical faith, that they believe the sinful nature of man to be essentially Reformed Theology. It was the basic premise behind sola fide and sola gratia, which is why those positions are so often undermind on this board, because people don't realize this. There are three major evangelical beliefs on this subject, Reformed, Lutheran, and Arminian. All three theological systems accept this point, how they relate it to election and free will is where they differ.

Also, the sinful nature was a major point of the Reformation, but it was one with sola gratia and sola fide. It was Calvin who later split it out into a seperate point to make his case for his 5 points, so it would be natural that reformed sites would be the ones to appear. The significance of this point to the Reformation is shown by the fact that the Councle of Trent declared an anathema upon it.

Do not be sad , be hopeful.

I think it might work well if you begin a thread in the proper forum on one topic.

I would thin a good place to start would be the nature of God and what each of the attributes mean .

You have to build on a foundation , not on sand :>) We have to understand God before we can understand the incarnation and salvation

Blessings to you

 

[seebs]

Well, I think it's safe to say that the point of this thread is shot.

I think it's actually doing very well; we're getting a chance to learn something about an area of the faith that most people never really look at.

Most Christians have very little interest in theology, and don't really know the foundations of all the things they're told. I think it's a great thread.

 

[rnmomof7]

I think it's actually doing very well; we're getting a chance to learn something about an area of the faith that most people never really look at.

Most Christians have very little interest in theology, and don't really know the foundations of all the things they're told. I think it's a great thread.

Me too.

 

[seebs]

I know , it is sad. Today the aim of the church seems to be to fill the pews instead of maturing the saints.
You know seebs there is an old saying that applies here. The only thing in the middle of the road is road kill. The churches that try to please everyone in the name if fellowship will find that in-spite of them God will move them to a teaching church.

Hmm. On the one hand, I tend to agree. On the other hand, a lot of churches get so caught up in one aspect of the faith that they neglect the rest of it, and I don't think that helps either.

We agree. The Bible is inherent in that it contains all the information needed for salvation . I would say only the original autographs are "infallible ". Most of the texts that do not agree were scribe related or small geographic errors that have no relevance .

I agree that the Bible is written for believer and is foolishness to non believers. It has to be read under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

People do not need to "see"the bible to be saved..but they need to hear the gospel. There are men saved in China that have never seen the written word , but they hear the memorized book of John.

This is about where we differ a bit; I don't think people need to hear the gospel to be saved. I mostly argue this from SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome). I think people need to accept God's grace, but I don't think they need to know all the words we use to describe it.

See we are not as far as you would think.

Indeed.

I do not think you mean to infer that we can work our way to salvation right? But rather that God in his mercy saved us by grace.
Again it is the order that is the sticking point

I think we agree here, but the words are tricksy. I don't think you can give $X to charity, where X is a big enough number, and go to Heaven for it. I do think it matters how you respond to God's grace.

I have always hear the Christ alone to mean that we are not saved by a church (think reformation) or any tradition or sacrament or any work of our own, but only by Christ .

As I look at this post I do not see us a world apart do you?

Nope. That's why I think we're all Christians, even when we don't agree on the fine points of theology.

I love to be made to defend my position . I never go away without learning something new (and I suspect the same is true of you). It is fruit ..fruit drawing is life from the vine

Praise God for that !!

Full agreement on this point.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think that was my point:>)
Most non Catholics can take them and with very little adaptation in definition accept them .

Actually, no. Our Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters view the whole question of sin ("original sin"/"total depravity"/"sin nature") quite differently than Western Christians. There are increasing numbers of Evangelicals whose theology is being more and more influenced by the thought of Eastern Christianity.

[Bowing out again....]

 

[JVAC]

The more I read in this thread the more I see, Sinfull Nature being marked as Total Depravity. That is not the case, if anything Total Depravity sprang from the Sinful Nature.

Is there anyone out there who says we can be saved by our own merit??




I will assume not, therefore it should be easy to grasp that since we cannot obtain salvation on our own, that we are enslaved to the Sinful Nature, and this is the main cause of our detestable lot.

Sinful Nature must be presumed, because if it isn't then man should be able to save himself, which would make Christ a vanity! This cannot be.

Sinful Nature does not presume predestination because we are all sinners, children of the fall, doomed in a world of sin. Predestination doesn't concentrate on the fact that we are doomed, it concentrates on how one might be saved. This process of election is the point of contention. We can accept Sinful Nature without accepting Predestination. Do not lump them in Calvin thought, while Calvin might have held true to it, he did not come up with it, nor is it require you to believe in predestination.






Total Depravity makes it to where one can never do right at all, whereas Sinful Nature causes us to be born in and presupposes us to sin. However, sinful nature doesn't bind up your will as much as total depravity. These can be contentious arguements but are not here; for the purpose of explanation.

 

[rnmomof7]

The more I read in this thread the more I see, Sinfull Nature being marked as Total Depravity. That is not the case, if anything Total Depravity sprang from the Sinful Nature.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God did not say they would be sick..He said ON THAT DAY they would die.

Now we know they did not physically die , so what did God mean?

I think the answer is found in the following verses.

Adam wished to be his own god, so he believed the lie.He rebelled against God

Adam, that had walked with God in the garden , now hid from Him. Man no longer sought God. He tried to remedy his sin himself..with leaves from the garden to cover them . When when confronted by his sin he refused to admit responsibility ..(it was the woman YOU gave me.) not only was he not responsibility it was Gods fault.


Man had died that day spiritually. He was no longer alive to God .

If you think of the way unregenerate men respond to their own sin..nothing has changed. They want to do as they want , they rationalize their sin by comparing them selves to other men (I am not as bad as my neighbor)

We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners . It is now the nature of men to rebel against God .


Some people use the term Total inability instead of Total depravity . Man is no longer able to walk with God in the garden , man no longer desires to walk with God in the garden . No matter what man does he is not able to take that first step toward God.

It is God that comes and finds us as he did Adam (think of the shepherd analogy) to cover us with with the blood of Christ. It is God that seeks to restore the relationship..not men .

Total depravity is not the same as absolute depravity , most of us are not as bad as we could be without the restraining hand of God .

Is there anyone out there who says we can be saved by our own merit??

I hope not :>)

I will assume not, therefore it should be easy to grasp that since we cannot obtain salvation on our own, that we are enslaved to the Sinful Nature, and this is the main cause of our detestable lot.

We are slaves on sin ..not a sin nature

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Sinful Nature must be presumed, because if it isn't then man should be able to save himself, which would make Christ a vanity! This cannot be.

Sinful Nature does not presume predestination because we are all sinners, children of the fall, doomed in a world of sin. Predestination doesn't concentrate on the fact that we are doomed, it concentrates on how one might be saved. This process of election is the point of contention. We can accept Sinful Nature without accepting Predestination. Do not lump them in Calvin thought, while Calvin might have held true to it, he did not come up with it, nor is it require you to believe in predestination.

The bible teaches that God is sovereign over all the affairs of men , our salvation is no exception. It is the doctrine of the Reformation . It is not necessary to believe it to be saved..Most Calvinists were not Calvinists when they were saved, they came to the doctrine by studying the word of God.

Total Depravity makes it to where one can never do right at all,

That is what the Bible tells us. Unregenerate man can never preform a God pleasing act...unregenerate man works for the approval of men not God.

Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean [thing], and ALL our righteousnesses [are] as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

Paul put it this way
Rom 3:10**
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11**
There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. **
*
Rom 3:12**
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


When God brought judgment on the world He observed

Gen. 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually



Rom 5:6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly


The unregenerate can do some civil good, such as, exercising justice and temperance. He can do acts of mercy and charity. He can abstain from theft and homicide. Some heathens have some virtue; however, they cannot do spiritual or supernatural good—pleasing and acceptable to God.

Prov. 2 1:4 the plowing of the wicked [is] sin

Unregenerate men can not do any spiritual good because he is spiritually dead.

Rom 8:6**
For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace.

**
*
Rom 8:7**
Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Rom 8:8**
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

The only acts that we can preform that please God are the ones He has ordained for us .

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

 

[Arc]

Some people use the term Total inability instead of Total depravity . Man is no longer able to walk with God in the garden , man no longer desires to walk with God in the garden . No matter what man does he is not able to take that first step toward God.

It is God that comes and finds us as he did Adam (think of the shepherd analogy) to cover us with with the blood of Christ. It is God that seeks to restore the relationship..not men .

Yes, I agree. Through the Gospel being preached.

Ephesians 1:13
And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit

But I don't see how one can be saved before he believes repents & is baptized. This would make the command to do these things by Jesus and Paul foolish. Grace is a free gift through faith. It doesn't mean we don't do anything for it. Believing, repenting & baptizm are acts of faith, not works of the law.

God gave Jericho into the hands of Joshua by faith, yet they still had to march around the city, etc. Hebrews says this was by faith, not works.

Joshua 6:2 Then the LORD said to Joshua, "See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men. 3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. 4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams' horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets. 5 When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have all the people give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the people will go up, every man straight in."

Hebrews 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days.

The opportunity of belief and repentace and baptizm is a gracious gift. This is the highlight of the Gospel. We don't earn our salvation by baptizm (as I have heard some say) anymore than Joshua earned the walls falling down by following God's command by faith.

 

[A. believer]

In my time here I have seen many of the less knowledgable in the PRE have their faith ripped away by those who attack strawmen and misconseptions, that many unfortunately hold of their own faith. I have seen many leave, and only know of one who converted to the evangelical faith. This has made me very sad, and has prompted me to think of leaving. I have yet to decide if the course of this forum requires me to stay or to leave. But on to the subject at hand. I believe that the most lacking thing in this forum is clear and in depth explainations of the basics, that sadly many do not understand. So, I would politely ask that those who are not orthodox Protestants, ie Evangelical/Reformed, not to debate the contents of this thread.

Here is a beginning list of what I think are the most urgently needed:
Sola Scriptura - which is one of the most frequently attacked, and most frequenty misunderstood
Sola Gratia and Sola Fide
The sinful nature of man


I'm going to start on these today after I get back from school. I would really love it if the experts here would help me out. You know who you are

I'm sorry to see that this thread hasn't worked out the way Lotar had in mind, but I decided to contribute to it anyway. I'm certainly not one of the "experts", and I do wish that those who are better informed and more articulate than I am would step up to the plate, but since this thread seems to be drifting away, I decided to contribute anyway.

First, though, I wanted to comment on the idea that many ill-informed Roman Catholics (including converts from Protestant denominations--maybe even especially converts from Protestant denominations) have about Protestants, and that is that there's no belief about which Protestants are unified except that we disagree with Roman Catholicism. The silliness of that statement ought to be obvious, but since there are some who obviously believe it, I'll point out the problem. The thing is, when Roman Catholics make this statement, they're defining Protestantism as all professing Christians who aren't Roman Catholic (or, it's seems generally agreed upon, Eastern Orthodox. Eastern Orthodoxy would be included as "one of them", presumably because the Roman Catholic Church officially recognizes the Eastern Orthodox sacraments as valid. Of course, the fact that Eastern Orthodox Christians aren't allowed to partake of the sacraments in Roman Catholic churches throws a little damper on that so-called sign of unity between the communions.)

The point is, of course, Roman Catholics want to point to the unity within their one denomination and contrast it with the lack of unity between every other denomination, (except Eastern Orthodoxy.) So what they're actually saying is equivalent to saying, for example, the only belief that all non-Southern Baptist, professing Christians, have in common is that the Southern Baptist Church is incorrect. This may well be so, but it's hardly a meaningful point to make. For those who subscribe to and defend distinctly Protestant distinctives, and who consider these distinctives to be non-negotiable essentials that uniquely define the Protestant tradition, as opposed to other Christian traditions, then to lump us together with those who either deny the truth of these distinctives or consider them unimportant, or even irrelevant, is, at best, sloppy thinking and, at worst, downright dishonest.

Of course, Christian Forums encourages this way of thinking by the way the forums are set up. Perhaps it would be nice if there were a forum specifically for those who hold to the solas of the Reformation, but since the board owners haven't seen fit to provide such a forum, then perhaps this thread can at least serve as a place where we can define the beliefs beyond the early creeds, that we consider essentials for the church. This doesn't mean, of course, that we believe that anyone who disagrees on any of these points must necessarily be outside of Christ. It does mean, though, that we consider them to be in denial of certain essential Christian doctrines.