What controversial beliefs do you hold?

[redleghunter]

No. There is distinction between believing that the return of Christ is imminent and claiming with certainty that it will occur in one's lifetime.

Indeed. The apostles taught to be watchful and ready.

 

[pakicetus]

Yep. Most so-called Christians in America really worship PC secular values. You seem to include yourself. Bad for you.

did you know jesus healed people who didn't have insurance

 

[Flash Gordon]

I am blind, I don't know what the difference is between the promises of God and the return of Christ. John 12:50 Jesus said the commandment of God is eternal life. Eternal life is not one day some day, it is not some time. Eternal life is now, if it wasn't now, it would be a contradiction. Eternal life is not bound by time, space and place. Eternal life doesn't count days anymore. Eternal life is fulfillment is now. The natural mind objects to reality of eternal life, so what do I do, submit to the natural mind or obey the commandment of God for what Christ died for? I choose the commandment.

 

[Neogaia777]

I was curious what all controversial beliefs are held here on CF so I decided to make a poll about it. Please do not debate the issues themselves, but if you want to reply with what you voted, please feel free.

Let's see, where oh where do I begin...?

Truth is always controversial...

God Bless!

 

[redleghunter]

Not true.
But I didn't think this thread was for debating the veracity of anybody's comments?



Millennialism was contested by amillennialists from the first century until the 4th century. The millennialist expectations of Justin, Irenaeus, and others failed to materialize, and they discredited themselves and were an embarrassment to the church of those centuries for their failed endtimes views. They had countless failed prophecies about being in the final generation (much like today's millennialists), and the amillennialists finally exposed their error and shut them down. Thank God for the amillennialists on that one. The Chuch owes them a great debt! Unfortunately, millennialism is back discrediting itself and the Church in our times, and has been doing so since about 1820.

But Again, this thread isn't for debating about these things.

Don't think Justin nor Irenaeus (Church Doctor) made crazy wild predictions of impending doom as some whack jobs have done throughout history. There have always been predictors but Justin and Irenaeus were not in that class. So they did not discredit themselves as many quote their works as solid theology throughout history.

Somehow you have linked Millerism with millennialism. Not the case. The church believing in the imminent return of Christ is very early. Someone can be literal on a millennial Kingdom without predicting the day and hour. So I find that linkage a bit of a straw man.

In fact if one actually reads all of Book 4 and 5 of Against Heresies, Irenaeus rebukes those who try to predict and instructs the faithful to leave such matters to the Holy Spirit.

What is considered an early document for Christianity is the Didache. Many scholars see it as a turn of the 1st Century post Apostolic document. True to form it teaches a literal tribulation (Matthew 24) and man of sin come to deceive the world (2 Thessalonians 2). Chapter 16 instructs the faithful to be watchful and ready.

Didache 16:
Watchfulness; the Coming of the Lord.Watch for your life's sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord will come. But come together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time. For in the last days false prophets and corrupters shall be multiplied, and the sheep shall be turned into wolves, and love shall be turned into hate; for when lawlessness increases, they shall hate and persecute and betray one another, and then shall appear the world-deceiver as Son of God, and shall do signs and wonders, and the earth shall be delivered into his hands, and he shall do iniquitous things which have never yet come to pass since the beginning. Then shall the creation of men come into the fire of trial, and many shall be made to stumble and shall perish; but those who endure in their faith shall be saved from under the curse itself. And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead -- yet not of all, but as it is said: "The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him." Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Many are fond of quoting the Didache to point to early post Apostolic church practices. Yet chapter 16 goes unnoticed.

 

[parousia70]

Don't think Justin nor Irenaeus (Church Doctor) made crazy wild predictions of impending doom as some whack jobs have done throughout history. There have always been predictors but Justin and Irenaeus were not in that class. So they did not discredit themselves as many quote their works as solid theology throughout history.

Didn't Irenaeus teach that Christ lived to be 50?

Somehow you have linked Millerism with millennialism. Not the case. The church believing in the imminent return of Christ is very early. Someone can be literal on a millennial Kingdom without predicting the day and hour. So I find that linkage a bit of a straw man.

Somehow you seem to be applying the definition of inevitability or eventuality to the word imminence.

Imminence is not the belief that "it could happen at any moment (or not)" which is what I understand you to be saying, imminence is the belief that it is indeed about to take place, it is at the point of happening and that we sit at the precipice of that near to be, soon coming event.

If Christians from the early centuries believed in an imminent return, they held a demonstrably false belief. An inevitable return however? The Jury is still out.

What is considered an early document for Christianity is the Didache. Many scholars see it as a turn of the 1st Century post Apostolic document.

Many are fond of quoting the Didache to point to early post Apostolic church practices. Yet chapter 16 goes unnoticed.

I guess we need to start with your evidence that the Didache is indeed a POST apostolic document.

The most exhaustive commentary work on the Didache by JP Audet dates it between 50-70AD

How do you believe presenting extra biblical writings from the apostolic era proves what people of post apostolic eras Believed?

 

[Questore]

I checked "other." I believe that the large majority of people today calling themselves Christians, disciples of Christ, are no such thing.

Matthew 7:13-14
13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Matthew 16:24-25
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.
25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

Selah.

That's because very few Believers in Yeshua are interested in acting like him. Studying and adding on Torah to your life as you are supposed to be doing under the guidance of the Ruach haKodesh seems to be seen as anathema, as if obeying Yeshua by doing what he said, in acting righteously to be loving one another, the basis of the entire New Testament's view of how to live was somehow wrong.

They want Yeshua AND all their old ways of sinning.

 

[HereIStand]

Ok... what do you suppose was the effect upon the faith of the first century Christians at Sardis when Jesus faild to "come as a thief" upon those there who did not watch as He promised He would? (Revelation 3:3)

How would those there who DID watch, view the character of God after He failed to follow through with that promise?

That He makes empty threats? That He lies? That He can't be trusted?

And again, of what benefit to the believer is being watchful?

Clearly the Christians of the 1200's who watched and died have no different an eternal fate than the Christians of the 1200's who did not watch, and died... right?

Christian faith should involve "looking for the blessed hope" of the return of Christ (Titus 2:13). Early Christians understood that Christ would ultimately fulfill His promise to return. II Peter 3 prophesied that "scoffers" would come in the "last days," ridiculing the delay of Christ return. "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (II Peter 3:8-9)."

 

[David Brider]

Not sure about Open Theism, but Full Preterism is the Belief that all Bible eschatology found it's fulfillment in the events leading up to and including Jerusalem's 70 AD destruction, and that we today are living "beyond the end times".

Thanks! In that case then, no, I don't believe in Full Preterism.

 

[tg3793]

I voted other, I believe that Jesus is the Word of God and that the scripture is the scripture.

I do not believe that anywhere in Scripture that anyone uses the word scripture synonymously with the phrase the Word of God. I think to use the two ideas synonymously has led too much poor theology. Usually the theology is harmless simply because the Theologian is not serious, as in most so-called Christians. If someone is passionate about their faith, and they also believe that the Bible is the word of God, here in begins the harm.

I was curious what all controversial beliefs are held here on CF so I decided to make a poll about it. Please do not debate the issues themselves, but if you want to reply with what you voted, please feel free.

 

[redleghunter]

How do you believe presenting extra biblical writings from the apostolic era proves what people of post apostolic eras Believed?

That seems pretty obvious, no?

 

[parousia70]

That seems pretty obvious, no?

Not really. It may support what folks of the Apostolic era believed, but we have scripture for that don't we?

How does it demonstrate what folks from the post apostolic era believed any more than scripture itself?

 

[parousia70]

Christian faith should involve "looking for the blessed hope" of the return of Christ (Titus 2:13). Early Christians understood that Christ would ultimately fulfill His promise to return.

Sounds very similar to my point.
I would add however, that "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, But when the desire comes, it is a tree of life." Proverbs 13:12

II Peter 3 prophesied that "scoffers" would come in the "last days," ridiculing the delay of Christ return. "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (II Peter 3:8-9)."

Well, the apostles unanimously believed and taught that Christ's return would happen in "their generation", for they preached that it was then "soon coming, without delay, at hand, must shortly take place, before they finished preaching in all of Israels cities", and was indeed "About to be".

Seems to me the real scoffers are the ones who say the apostles were wrong in their expectation.
If we can contend that they were so wrong about something so critical as that, how do we know they were right about anything else? Such as the doctrines of Grace through faith, Baptism, Repentance?

The answer is We Can't. Our faith depends on them being correct about everything they taught.

 

[surrender1]

I was curious what all controversial beliefs are held here on CF so I decided to make a poll about it. Please do not debate the issues themselves, but if you want to reply with what you voted, please feel free.

For what it's worth.

I lean partial preterism. Makes the most sense out of the gospel accounts when I read them through. Seems the only prophesy yet to come is Jesus' physical return and the restoration of all things.

I lean open theism because I believe in an all-loving God but clearly he does not always have the “power” to intervene in human affairs, even though I believe his heart and nature desperately wants to stop the suffering his child experiences as she cries out in agony for his help.

Yes, of course, on ordination of women.

I don’t think premarital sex is always sinful when the two are committed in a covenantal agreement (whether that’s verbal or written).

I don’t think same-sex relationships are inherently sinful. Same thing as above, though (committed covenantal agreement).

I lean theistic evolution but I don’t think Genesis teaches on the matter either way.

I’m a hopeful universalist. I see enough scriptures supporting it to remain hopeful that a God of restoration will restore all humans at some point, whether in this life or post-mortal in some way.

 

[surrender1]

There are some that I don't really know what they are (full preterism and open theism?), but ticked the pre-marital sex, same-sex relationships, ordination of women, and other - heck, there are probably loads of controversial beliefs I hold, but specifically I'm not convinced that the Word ofvGod and the Bible are the same thing. Which to me isn't particularly controversial, but I know some people would disagree with me.

Full preterism is the view that all prophecies of the bible have already happened. Partial preterism (which is where I lean) is the view that all prophecies of the bible, except for Jesus' physical return and the restoration of all things, have already happened.

Open theism, although by its name sounds like it's about God, is really a belief about time. It's based on the idea that time is not some sort of entity (i.e. not something God created, like gravity); time is part of reality. Time is simply a word we use to describe the realty that existence is sequential. This has caused more controversy than it's worth, in my opinion. Classical theists will say, "Then you are saying that God is not all-knowing" and the open theist will say, "Not so. God exhaustively knows everything knowable. If there was a future to be known, God would, indeed, know it. It's just that the future hasn't happened yet. Not in reality and not "in the mind of God" because time is *not an entity* that God created."

 

[2consider]

I wasn't sure I could hit the agree or like button for your entire post, but I agree with this part. I don't understand many persons' obsession with this topic over all others. As an old straight guy, I've got plenty of old straight guy sins to worry about.

I have enough things to answer for myself, I can't take time to focus on the sins of others.

I understand why people fight against things the bible says are sin, but if God is truly in control, then what can I do to help? I don't even know what is helpful. Is protesting gay people truly helpful, or does it make things worse?

I certainly know that defending God doesn't earn me credits for the sins in my own life.

 

[redleghunter]

Not really. It may support what folks of the Apostolic era believed, but we have scripture for that don't we?

How does it demonstrate what folks from the post apostolic era believed any more than scripture itself?

One would have to believe the one is mutually exclusive to the other. Which is a possibility, however, as pointed out Didache 16 is confirmed by Matthew 24 and 2 Thessalonians 2.

 

[Halbhh]

I think it's controversial to believe not only in the moral teachings and metaphorical truths the scriptures have all through, in all the Old and New Testaments, but to believe more -- that Christ actually walked on water, actually raised Lazarus from the dead after 4 days, actually rose from the grave Himself. So it's not only that "He is risen" in that His words will live on and teach humanity forever.....it's more. He actually rose, and is alive, now. That's kinda controversial if you state it with real friends where people feel really safe in speaking their minds, where they feel they can say what they really think without being judgmentally rejected. In this kind of thing, we can only testify to others well only if we are truly loving and truly humble, and we really do love them, and are not judging them.

 

[JesusIsMyTicket]

clicked ordination of women and same-sex relationships are not sinful.

 

[Soulfly.01]

I marked: 1) Annihilationism, 2) Ordination of Women, and 3) Theistic Evolution..............all of which should be old news for any of those who have read my posts over the past few years.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Got to agree on all 3 here. Great minds think alike I guess.