Thread to determine some basic tenets of Christianity

[sculleywr]

No, not at all. God knew who would love and accept his son, and as such He predestined them to be conformed to be like His son, Christ-like, and at the same time He called, justified and glorified them. Don 't get thrown off by the word 'predestined', as it ONLY refers to those who accept Jesus. It means that God has a plan for their lives. If we choose Him we need to also choose to follow His plan. Of course that is not always the case and many of us stumble.

So He built His plan around those who freely accept Him. However, none have excuse. Therefore, our repentance is required and possible for anyone. We can repent, of our basic nature.

 

[stan1953]

So He built His plan around those who freely accept Him. However, none have excuse. Therefore, our repentance is required and possible for anyone. We can repent, of our basic nature.

His plan had ALL contingencies, including those who accepted His son.
Yes, we can repent and are commanded to do so. We as believers are included IN His plan but His plan is because of who He wanted ALL believers to be.

 

[sculleywr]

His plan had ALL contingencies, including those who accepted His son.
Yes, we can repent and are commanded to do so. We as believers are included IN His plan but His plan is because of who He wanted ALL believers to be.

But if we CAN repent, then repentance is not given by God, but is our personal assent to the Grace of God

 

[stan1953]

But if we CAN repent, then repentance is not given by God, but is our personal assent to the Grace of God

Yes, repentance can only come from within. That is what confess means. We are to confess or AGREE with God about the sin that IS in our lives. Both for salvation and afterwards in our daily walk.

 

[sculleywr]

Yes, repentance can only come from within. That is what confess means. We are to confess or AGREE with God about the sin that IS in our lives. Both for salvation and afterwards in our daily walk.

I stated that our salvation is composed of the following three things:
1. God's grace (this does the actual WORK of salvation
2. Our Faith (granted by God at the beginning of every person's life, and invested back into God)
3. Our repentance (an ability that men have as part of their basic nature, the ability to CHOOSE to follow Christ and then ACT on that choice.

Pelagianism, named after Pelagius (who was actually exonerated when examined by the Church, and so probably never actually believed his namesake belief), taught that some people did not need God's grace at all. The Church, most notably represented by St. Augustine, rejected this doctrine. St. Augustine, however, went overboard, and St. John Cassian published a corrective of St. Augustine's work, though he never actually named St. Augustine out of great personal respect.

Calvinists came along centuries later and accused St. John Cassian of being "semi-pelagian", despite the fact that the term never existed and the soteriology of John Cassian was simply a restatement of what the Church always taught.

 

[stan1953]

I stated that our salvation is composed of the following three things:
1. God's grace (this does the actual WORK of salvation
2. Our Faith (granted by God at the beginning of every person's life, and invested back into God)
3. Our repentance (an ability that men have as part of their basic nature, the ability to CHOOSE to follow Christ and then ACT on that choice.

Pelagianism, named after Pelagius (who was actually exonerated when examined by the Church, and so probably never actually believed his namesake belief), taught that some people did not need God's grace at all. The Church, most notably represented by St. Augustine, rejected this doctrine. St. Augustine, however, went overboard, and St. John Cassian published a corrective of St. Augustine's work, though he never actually named St. Augustine out of great personal respect.

Calvinists came along centuries later and accused St. John Cassian of being "semi-pelagian", despite the fact that the term never existed and the soteriology of John Cassian was simply a restatement of what the Church always taught.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make now. FYI if you know me at all you know I am NOT into defending ECF teachings nor others that came along subsequent to them. We all have the same availability of scripture to us and are able to "STUDY TO SHOW OURSELVES APPROVED".
I see no reason to defend or refute old doctrine when we are able to just simply use the Bible we have to exposit what is there.

FYI, I am against Calvin's TULIP doctrine or what is more commonly referred to these days as RT(Reformed Theology)

I didn't see the OP as being that of Soteriology.

 

[sculleywr]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make now. FYI if you know me at all you know I am NOT into defending ECF teachings nor others that came along subsequent to them. We all have the same availability of scripture to us and are able to "STUDY TO SHOW OURSELVES APPROVED".
I see no reason to defend or refute old doctrine when we are able to just simply use the Bible we have to exposit what is there.

FYI, I am against Calvin's TULIP doctrine or what is more commonly referred to these days as RT(Reformed Theology)

I didn't see the OP as being that of Soteriology.

We ended up in a discussion of soteriology as it is one of the basic tenets.

As to using the Bible alone, it was the doctrine of the ECF's that determined the canon of Scripture.


We cannot, ourselves, be the arbiter of truth. Scripture establishes the Church as the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth". We can read the Scripture, but we are not the sole expositors of Scripture. That is why we have the Church, and by extension, all members of the Church, both the Church Triumphant, and the Church Militant.

 

[stan1953]

We ended up in a discussion of soteriology as it is one of the basic tenets.
As to using the Bible alone, it was the doctrine of the ECF's that determined the canon of Scripture.
We cannot, ourselves, be the arbiter of truth. Scripture establishes the Church as the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth". We can read the Scripture, but we are not the sole expositors of Scripture. That is why we have the Church, and by extension, all members of the Church, both the Church Triumphant, and the Church Militant.

Of course that is a typical EOC or RCC tenet, but not one in the Protestant church. I was born and raised RCC but I found way to many errors and contradictions in my early years. By the time I was 17 I was saved in a Pentecostal church and have never gone back. Jesus said He gave us the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, along with the written word. Teachers may be able to, but Jesus knew and saw first hand how unreliable men are to teach. It's best to follow the teaching found in God's Word.
1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[sculleywr]

Of course that is a typical EOC or RCC tenet, but not one in the Protestant church. I was born and raised RCC but I found way to many errors and contradictions in my early years. By the time I was 17 I was saved in a Pentecostal church and have never gone back. Jesus said He gave us the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth, along with the written word. Teachers may be able to, but Jesus knew and saw first hand how unreliable men are to teach. It's best to follow the teaching found in God's Word.
1 John 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Either the Holy Spirit is highly schizophrenic, or He's a holy relativist in relation to doctrine and dogma.

Just because you were in a place with incorrect traditions does not mean there isn't a Tradition. Specifically, there are Traditions the Scripture specifically tells us exist in the letters to the Thessalonians and Corinthians.

If Scripture commands us to follow a Tradition, it is reasonable to believe that Tradition will be preserved by God. And since there is only one Truth, that Truth must be preserved in its completeness. In other words, the Scripture is not useful apart from a correct understanding of Scripture.

 

[stan1953]

Either the Holy Spirit is highly schizophrenic, or He's a holy relativist in relation to doctrine and dogma.

Just because you were in a place with incorrect traditions does not mean there isn't a Tradition. Specifically, there are Traditions the Scripture specifically tells us exist in the letters to the Thessalonians and Corinthians.

If Scripture commands us to follow a Tradition, it is reasonable to believe that Tradition will be preserved by God. And since there is only one Truth, that Truth must be preserved in its completeness. In other words, the Scripture is not useful apart from a correct understanding of Scripture.

Not at all...those were current traditions as Paul had just written and taught about them.

Jesus was always being accused of breaking tradition. Look what He says in Mark 7:13
"Thus you invalidate the word of God with your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many similar things.”

Paul says we are to STUDY scripture in order to rightly divide it. Nothing about following men's teachings. This my profile signature.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

No, not at all. God knew who would love and accept his son, and as such He predestined them to be conformed to be like His son, Christ-like, and at the same time He called, justified and glorified them. Don
't get thrown off by the word 'predestined', as it ONLY refers to those who accept Jesus. It means that God has a plan for their lives. If we choose Him we need to also choose to follow His plan. Of course that is not always the case and many of us stumble.

See, this is where it gets confusing. God 'predestines' us to choose Him (by grace are ye saved, not of works, no boasting, and so forth...), yet even though we are predestined, there is still talk of "if we choose Him..."

Strange...

 

[MoreCoffee]

See, this is where it gets confusing. God 'predestines' us to choose Him (by grace are ye saved, not of works, no boasting, and so forth...), yet even though we are predestined, there is still talk of "if we choose Him..."

Strange...

I may be wrong but I think that the theology behind 'predestination' is built on seeing things with God's eyes; it is, I think, a God's eye view of creation. But since no creature on Earth has God's eyes it seems to me that a God's eye view is a speculation about what creatures imagine God's eyes see. And theology that is built on what creatures imagine about God's perspective cannot help but be speculative at some level.

A human's eye view of salvation is that human beings choose to believe or not for their own reasons and the scriptures give human beings every reason to believe that what a person chooses to believe and do is what will decide his or her final state - saved or lost.

 

[sculleywr]

Not at all...those were current traditions as Paul had just written and taught about them. Jesus was always being accused of breaking tradition. Look what He says in Mark 7:13 "Thus you invalidate the word of God with your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many similar things.” Paul says we are to STUDY scripture in order to rightly divide it. Nothing about following men's teachings. This my profile signature.

So the letter to the Thessalonians is no longer applicable to us? We no longer need to worry about obeying II Thessalonians 2:15 or 3:8?

Niet.

We are given ALL scripture so that we may follow ALL of scripture. There are therefore two types of traditions: man's traditions and God's Tradition. God's tradition is the Tradition of the Apostles and was given in both oral and written forms.

God preserved both because otherwise we can't obey the written Tradition.

 

[stan1953]

So the letter to the Thessalonians is no longer applicable to us? We no longer need to worry about obeying II Thessalonians 2:15 or 3:8?

If you are speaking about traditions IN scripture, I call them teachings and I have no problem following scriptural teachings as Paul instructed in 2 Thess 2:15. I have no idea how 3:8 fits into this.

We are given ALL scripture so that we may follow ALL of scripture. There are therefore two types of traditions: man's traditions and God's Tradition. God's tradition is the Tradition of the Apostles and was given in both oral and written forms.
God preserved both because otherwise we can't obey the written Tradition.

If Paul was alive today, or ANY of the Apostles, I also would have no problem with following their instructions, but Paul says nothing about following OTHER men's instructions, he says his instructions and as all we have is the written word that is what I will follow.
Your POV says tradition is apostolic in nature and therefore conveyable, but I see nothing in scripture that says the Apostolic authority that existed in that time was conveyed or that Jesus gave any such instruction. He Himself called Paul and the only other apostle named after Jesus' death was Matthias. As it was the 11 remaining who carefully came up with the two finalists and in prayerful consideration allowed God to influence the outcome by lots, I don't have a problem with that.

I understand your allegiance to this type of polity but it is NOT supported by scripture. Even today elections in the EOC and RCC are far more political than spiritual IMO. As a matter of fact I would say in MOST denominations it is more political than anything else. Sounds cynical, I know, but that has been my experience.

There is nothing the Bible and the Holy Spirit cannot tell us that men can.

 

[sculleywr]

If you are speaking about traditions IN scripture, I call them teachings and I have no problem following scriptural teachings as Paul instructed in 2 Thess 2:15. I have no idea how 3:8 fits into this. If Paul was alive today, or ANY of the Apostles, I also would have no problem with following their instructions, but Paul says nothing about following OTHER men's instructions, he says his instructions and as all we have is the written word that is what I will follow. Your POV says tradition is apostolic in nature and therefore conveyable, but I see nothing in scripture that says the Apostolic authority that existed in that time was conveyed or that Jesus gave any such instruction. He Himself called Paul and the only other apostle named after Jesus' death was Matthias. As it was the 11 remaining who carefully came up with the two finalists and in prayerful consideration allowed God to influence the outcome by lots, I don't have a problem with that. I understand your allegiance to this type of polity but it is NOT supported by scripture. Even today elections in the EOC and RCC are far more political than spiritual IMO. As a matter of fact I would say in MOST denominations it is more political than anything else. Sounds cynical, I know, but that has been my experience. There is nothing the Bible and the Holy Spirit cannot tell us that men can.

I'm speaking of Traditions. They include scripture and the canon that defines scripture is a tradition that one has to place over scripture, since scripture does not define itself in a table of contents.

And many times, the Spirit uses men to tell us things. Some people, I am certain, will arrive in heaven to find they were wrong. I imagine the following conversation:
"But God, I asked for your Spirit to guide me. Why did He not give me the truth?"
"I sent my Spirit to you with the voices of men to lead you into my truth. But you turned them away."

Tradition is necessary because it is the proper understanding of Scripture.

 

[stan1953]

I'm speaking of Traditions. They include scripture and the canon that defines scripture is a tradition that one has to place over scripture, since scripture does not define itself in a table of contents.

And many times, the Spirit uses men to tell us things. Some people, I am certain, will arrive in heaven to find they were wrong. I imagine the following conversation:
"But God, I asked for your Spirit to guide me. Why did He not give me the truth?"
"I sent my Spirit to you with the voices of men to lead you into my truth. But you turned them away."

Tradition is necessary because it is the proper understanding of Scripture.

I understand what you are speaking of.

Bottom line is scripture DOES define and interpret itself. It doesn't need men. Men are used of God no doubt. IF you say that something is not the traditional way you were taught and refuse to look at anything else then tradition is not helping you it is hindering you.

The Holy Spirit does use people, those you have an established relationship with, in order to get through on issues we may be subjective on. That is normal. Your example is based on circular reasoning, so does NOT hold water.
John 20:31
these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Tradition does not help in this regard. God's word does, along with the Holy Spirit. I may use tradition to get a perspective on how long something has been in the church, but it is NOT tradition that I follow, as both Jesus and Paul warned.
Ignore their warnings at your own peril.

 

[sculleywr]

I understand what you are speaking of.

Bottom line is scripture DOES define and interpret itself. It doesn't need men. Men are used of God no doubt. IF you say that something is not the traditional way you were taught and refuse to look at anything else then tradition is not helping you it is hindering you.

The Holy Spirit does use people, those you have an established relationship with, in order to get through on issues we may be subjective on. That is normal. Your example is based on circular reasoning, so does NOT hold water.
John 20:31
these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Tradition does not help in this regard. God's word does, along with the Holy Spirit. I may use tradition to get a perspective on how long something has been in the church, but it is NOT tradition that I follow, as both Jesus and Paul warned.
Ignore their warnings at your own peril.

Ok. Point me then to the inspired table of contents.

The table of Contents should complete the following tasks that is completed by the table of contents of any compiled book:

1. This fully God-breathed, inerrant Table of Contents must have been written by one of the authors of the compiled books
2. It must be an inerrant list of exactly which books are in the Bible, to the exclusion of all others.
3. It must say who wrote the books, and when they were written.

The problem is, you cannot give me that table of contents. A Table of Contents defines a book. It tells exactly what is in the book. Because the Table of Contents is NOT God-Breathed Scripture, your Table of Contents is the work of man. Period. End of discussion. The Table of Contents is tradition. That tradition is allowed to define Scripture.

Therefore no, you do not have Scripture as supreme authority. IT is theologically impossible, because God did NOT give us a table of contents until 300 years after. The canon is not written by the Apostles or the Prophets. It was written by man. Therefore you break your own rules, which say you may not have a tradition over Scripture, but you DO. It is inescapable unless you also say "I only THINK these are His Scripture. I cannot know this epistemologically like I know that 1+1=2"

This is why Paul commanded "Hold fast to my Traditions (literally: Paradosis, that which is handed down from those who came before), whether by my WORD (spoken Tradition) or my epistle (Written Tradition in Scripture)

Both are placed on equal level, because both were what drove the Church for 300 years.

Without any Scripture whatsoever, the Church in the area of Lyons of the 2nd century led the charge against Gnostic heresies and evangelized an entire country for Christ.

Their own leader, St. Irenaeus, said that happened because of their strict adherence to "that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches" (Against Heresies Volume 3, Chapter 2, verse 2)

And this was the Tradition to which they held:

"...carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent." (St. Irenaeus, ibid, 3. 4. 2.)