Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
depthdeception said:Then you have no basis for faith.
And don't bother saying that you have the Scriptures, for the same Church gave you the Scriptures that gave the creeds that you reject.
Polycarp1 said:Actually they are, Diane, not because a Catholic or Orthodox poster or I said so, but on the assumption that they're the Truth and that that Truth is necessary for salvation.
However, you make a good point; in General Theology it's never wise to assume anything about what someone else believes, because the most goshawful concepts have been seriously advanced as "true Christianity" here.
May I recommend to all who might be interested the remarkable book called Cur Deus Homo (How Is God Man?) by St. Anselm of Canterbury, which explores the questions of the Incarnation and the Atonement in the form of a dialogue between Anselm himself and an interlocutor named Boso (a legitimate medieval name, not to be confused with the clown). The link connects to a fairly easy reading and slightly abridged version that focuses on the issues at hand.
The creeds are binding on the Church. They do not express the opinion of mere men -- they reveal the truth about God as explained in Scripture, handed down by the Apostles who were the disciples of Jesus Christ himself.Diane_Windsor said:And? That does not mean that the creeds, in and of themselves, are binding on Christ's Church. God is not going to bar someone from Heaven because they disagree with the opinions of men.
This is a fallacy; you are generalizing from a particular case. It is the same thing as saying that baptism is not salvific because the thief was saved and he did not receive baptism. No, Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture, and Paul was vocal about Christians who too easily accepted another gospel and another Christ.Diane_Windsor said:I disagree. The only thing that is neccessary for salvation is the Grace of God-see Paul's writings for that. Did the theif on the cross profess belief in a Trinity, or did he profess that Jesus had two natures? One nature? Did he profess that he was "fully God"? No, he, by God's grace, simply placed his trust in Jesus.
Scholar in training said:The creeds are binding on the Church. They do not express the opinion of mere men -- they reveal the truth about God as explained in Scripture, handed down by the Apostles who were the disciples of Jesus Christ himself.
It is also a heresy to say that Jesus had only one nature, whether it be only God or only Man.
These heterodox beliefs (and other heterodox beliefs) create problems in relation to the Scriptures, an individual's practice of the fatih, and simple logic.
Scholar in training said:This is a fallacy; you are generalizing from a particular case. It is the same thing as saying that baptism is not salvific because the thief was saved and he did not receive baptism. No, Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture, and Paul was vocal about Christians who too easily accepted another gospel and another Christ.
Shouldn't someone who is freethinking endeavor to have an open mind?Diane_Windsor said:We will have to agree to disagree brother because you will not change my mind.
What about them? IIRC, I have already heard the allegation that the Oriental Orthodox are monophysites. I don't know if they are or not, and it does not affect me personally at all. If you are trying to appeal to my belief system, then you have mistaken which "Orthodoxy" I am an inquierer of.Really? You might want to go ask our Oriental Orthodox brethren about that.
See Your position on Christ and His nature
The differences between their opinion and my own are numerous. They cannot appeal to Church history or to credentialed scholars in support of their heterodoxy. They can try, but they will not get much farther than that.In your opinion. In the opinion of the Oneness Pentacostals, Michael Servetus, and others several "orthodox" beliefs are illogical and create problems in relation to the Scriptures.
The NT was written in a high-context society. Should we expect the Apostle to recount everything one must do to be saved every time he is asked?How about the jailor? He asked what must he do to be saved. The Apostles reponded that he needed to believe in Jesus. There are many other Scripture references about salvation and not one of them says that one must believe in the Trinity, etc.
Yes, this is true. We are saved by grace. Through faith and works. The wording is very important.And above all, Paul told the Ephesians that Grace alone saves us.
Scholar in training said:Yes, this is true. We are saved by grace. Through faith and works. The wording is very important.
I might say the same to you.Lynn73 said:Yes the wording is important and I suggest you read them again.
The color and underlining is superfluous.Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
What the text says is that we cannot save ourselves. I have not argued that we can, and you are merely burning a strawman. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly states that whatever the word "that" refers to, it is not of ourselves. We only produce works because our will cooperates with the grace of God. In this way his grace stimulates and assists in producing our works, and it is not enhanced by our works (and so the "that" is not of ourselves). At the same time our will is not coerced into doing anything.It plainly says it is not of ourselves.
Scholar in training said:Shouldn't someone who is freethinking endeavor to have an open mind?
What about them? IIRC, I have already heard the allegation that the Oriental Orthodox are monophysites. I don't know if they are or not, and it does not affect me personally at all. If you are trying to appeal to my belief system, then you have mistaken which "Orthodoxy" I am an inquierer of.
The differences between their opinion and my own are numerous. They cannot appeal to Church history or to credentialed scholars in support of their heterodoxy. They can try, but they will not get much farther than that.
The NT was written in a high-context society. Should we expect the Apostle to recount everything one must do to be saved every time he is asked?
You are now using an argument from silence.
Yes, this is true. We are saved by grace. Through faith and works. The wording is very important.
The Trinity...........Cleany said:"Fully God"? Apparently it is "necessary" to believe that about Jesus to be a Christian, but why? And what does it mean anyway, does anyone actually understand it?
Who is and who isn't unorthodox is independent of one's perspective.Diane_Windsor said:You missed the point. You might want to ask OO what they view as "heterodox". What is "heterodox" and what is "orthodox" depends on your perspective. Who is and is not a "heretic" also depends on your perspective.
But I did not appeal to "popularity", nor did I appeal to longevity. This is not about number or how long a given belief has existed. I was referring first to the weight of evidence carried by the eyewitnesses to Jesus' life (that is, the people who wrote the books of the NT), and then to the Church Fathers who came after them and interpreted the documents and Tradition left in their charge.And? Just because for 2000 years a lot of people believed in doctrine X does not mean that that belief is valid. Popularity and longevity of a claim does not make a claim valid.
Spong brings up interesting points occasionally, but not enough to give him any good stock of credit. He is far too liberal in regards to his understanding of Hebrew and Christian culture. Someone (claiming to be a Christian, no less) who calls circumcision an expression of "male fear" of menstrual blood and sees erotic acts where there are none needs to get a clue.John Shelby Spong is not a credentialed scholar?
Crossan is an example the best you can expect from skeptics. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another issue entirely.John Dominic Crossan not a credentialed scholar? . . . . I beg to differ.
Did the Apostles add anything else to salvation? No. They said that the jailor had to believe in Jesus. They didn't say anything about what it means to follow the commandments, or anything about almsgiving. End of story.Did the Apostles add anything else to salvation? No. They said that the jailor had to believe in Jesus. They didn't say anything about believing in a Trinity, or anything about the nature of Jesus. End of story.
But you are not applying the principle of scriptura scripturam interpretar.How so? I am just taking the Apostles at their word.
If one does not know who Jesus is, then they cannot very well place their "faith" in him.If you claim that one must have a belief in the Trinity, etc. in addition to placing their faith in Jesus then you bear the burden of proof.
Yawn, see my above post to Lynn. This incorrect interpretation merely succeeds in forming a contradition between St. Paul and St. James, which some skeptics have taken advantage of to suggest that there was a split between the two.I'll let my brother Paul speak for himself:
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)
No. If one is passing down a revealed set of teachings that originated 2000 years ago, then what followers of those teachings taught and preserved as the true teachings from 2000 years ago to the present is vitally important.Diane_Windsor said:And? Just because for 2000 years a lot of people believed in doctrine X does not mean that that belief is valid. Popularity and longevity of a claim does not make a claim valid. That is a logical fallacy.
No beginning of story. Believing in Jesus is not just like saying "I believe in fairies". Believing in Jesus means knowing who he is, having faith in His Gospel and following His teachings. The jailer will have joined the Church and learned all thes things.Did the Apostles add anything else to salvation? No. They said that the jailor had to believe in Jesus. They didn't say anything about believing in a Trinity, or anything about the nature of Jesus. End of story.
The trouble is you cling to one verse in isolation from the rest of the Gospel.How so? I am just taking the Apostles at their word. If you claim that one must have a belief in the Trinity, etc. in addition to placing their faith in Jesus then you bear the burden of proof.
I'll let my brother Paul speak for himself:
8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)
Cleany said:"does anyone actually understand it?
Axion said:No. If one is passing down a revealed set of teachings that originated 2000 years ago, then what followers of those teachings taught and preserved as the true teachings from 2000 years ago to the present is vitally important.
No beginning of story. Believing in Jesus is not just like saying "I believe in fairies". Believing in Jesus means knowing who he is, having faith in His Gospel and following His teachings. The jailer will have joined the Church and learned all thes things.
The trouble is you cling to one verse in isolation from the rest of the Gospel.
Diane_Windsor said:You are not close to prooving that we must believe in the Trinity, etc.
Scholar in training said:Who is and who isn't unorthodox is independent of one's perspective.
Scholar in training said:But I did not appeal to "popularity", nor did I appeal to longevity. This is not about number or how long a given belief has existed. I was referring first to the weight of evidence carried by the eyewitnesses to Jesus' life (that is, the people who wrote the books of the NT), and then to the Church Fathers who came after them and interpreted the documents and Tradition left in their charge.
Spong brings up interesting points occasionally, but not enough to give him any good stock of credit. He is far too liberal in regards to his understanding of Hebrew and Christian culture. Someone (claiming to be a Christian, no less) who calls circumcision an expression of "male fear" of menstrual blood and sees erotic acts where there are none needs to get a clue.
But you are not applying the principle of scriptura scripturam interpretar.
If one does not know who Jesus is, then they cannot very well place their "faith" in him.
Yawn, see my above post to Lynn. This incorrect interpretation merely succeeds in forming a contradition between St. Paul and St. James, which some skeptics have taken advantage of to suggest that there was a split between the two.
IgnatiusOfAntioch said:So do I understand correctly, Diane, that you don't believe in the Trinity?
Diane_Windsor said:Ignatius
I guess one more reply couldn't hurt.
How did you get that from this below?
"You are not close to prooving that we must believe in the Trinity, etc."
A person can believe in the Trinity, yet not believe that belief in the Trinity is an "essential" doctrine so to speak. Anyway, I don't recall that I stated anything about my personal beliefs regarding Jesus, how I view the Trinity, etc.
DIANE
IgnatiusOfAntioch said:Diane_Windsor said:You are not close to prooving that we must believe in the Trinity, etc.
So do I understand correctly, Diane, that you don't believe in the Trinity?
I only mean to say that a person is heterodox (not necessarily the same thing as a heretic) regardless of whether or not someone thinks he is.Diane_Windsor said:Yes it does. To RCs Martin Luther is a heretic. To me, he is a saint. We view him differently because we have different perspectives
The position of early Church Fathers and modern scholars have nothing to do with whether or not the early Church was the Roman Catholic/Orthodox/etc. Church. These are two separate arguments.You are also basing your argument on an assumption-see my above response to Axion and depthdeception.
In a world where John Doe thinks he is more capable of interpreting a given text than credentialed scholars and authority figures within the Church, it is very important to emphasize Church "precedent".From the quote below it seems to me like you are saying that those who hold "heterodox" views are wrong because the Early Church Fathers and "credentialed scholars" disagree with them.
It is not a fallacy. I have not based my argument on numbers, I have based it on the valid authority of learned individuals and a corps, the corps, the Body of Christ.Looks like a fallacy to me:
Only because Spong's opinions on the issues I mentioned are ludicrous. In those areas he is clearly not "within the mainstream".So in your opinion a credible "credentialed scholar" is one that is not too liberal.
Curious, I believe I have criticized Spong on the grounds of very specific examples of shoddy scholarship. What biblical field of study did Spong receive his doctorate in, BTW? He is certainly not an expert in the social sciences, or else he would not have made the blunders he did. Does it at all concern you that non-Christians may read his book and get the wrong idea about the faith?In my opinion, and I think I speak for the majority of Americans, a "credentialed scholar" is one who has earned a doctorate degree in a particular field of study (from a recognised institution), and usually does post academic work, etc., etc., etc.
No, this is in effect believing another gospel and another Christ. If we are both talking about the moon, and I believe the moon is made of granite, while you believe it is made of green cheese, we are clearly not talking about the same thing. Jesus did not say "stop worrying about who I am and just follow me". On the contrary, we read in Proverbs to "buy the truth and not sell it".Anyone can place their faith in Jesus of Nazareth without knowing or understanding the precise details of who he was, etc.
No text "speaks for itself". There is always an interpreter, as everyone has certain filters, assumptions, and judgments that may cause them to incorrectly understand what someone else has said. Protestantism has merely shifted the interpreting from the central authority of the Church to the relative authority of the individual, and in doing so has detracted or departed from several important concepts found within Scripture.Very illuminating response, all I did was let Paul speak for himself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?