What would option 3 look like

[WalksWithChrist]

Well guys to be perfectly honest arguing over the various creeds is one of the things that keeps Christians divided and has done down through the centuries!

As we are supposed to have the stated aim of Uniting All Christians I think we should stick to the simplest statement of faith we can find and forget about all the historic controversies that were the subject of many conflicts and wars through our chequered history.

How about 'I believe in Jesus Christ, crucified, buried and resurrected!'

After all we are called Christians - Christ Followers.

P

Very good points.

 

[stranger]

Well guys to be perfectly honest arguing over the various creeds is one of the things that keeps Christians divided and has done down through the centuries!

As we are supposed to have the stated aim of Uniting All Christians I think we should stick to the simplest statement of faith we can find and forget about all the historic controversies that were the subject of many conflicts and wars through our chequered history.

How about 'I believe in Jesus Christ, crucified, buried and resurrected!'

After all we are called Christians - Christ Followers.

P

As has been pointed out , saying one believes is not enough, one has to obey Jesus as Lord ... Jesus' command as Lord is a 'baptism of fire' in trial of their faith to be able to love all men at all times ,even their worst enemies , and so show their love of God who stands for that love between men ...

Thus no sinner can please God [sin is simply BREAKING the law of Love, disobeying Jesus as Lord] ...

Thus one might have an area on the site for communion of saints , but very few would use it because there are so few saints following jesus in perfect love ...

Most men cannot come even close to what Matthew described is required to follow Jesus :-

Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Thus this site must mostly, almost exclusively, be for sinners who do not have all truth in this life, because Jesus has not caused God to send spirit baptism to the many ... we know this because almost all christians, like other men, die without knowig all truth [John 16:13]

Thus the bible sorts the wheat from the chaff , and one cannot make oneself a follower of Jesus just by saying you believe in Jesus Christ ... after all most professing 'christians' do not even know what a 'christ' is !!!

The site should thus be open since most of those who call themselves 'christian' will indeed be in the same boat as all other sinners when Jesus returns, for he never knew them [and says so] despite they call out 'Lord, lord!' ... for he was not their lord since they never obeyed him in this life [a different matter though in the new earth, where most obey Jesus , living under his law righteously, after the second resurrection]

The main thing then is to keep the discussion going and MAKE IT PRODUCTIVE in reproving all faiths to the scripture ... and for that one needs only faith in the scripture as a 'creed' for which one is prepared to sacrifice what one learned from sinners [since we believe in scripture more than any creed ... it is thus better than any creed as a basis here for the law of Love to be implemented as the way the site is run...

Thus it would be a christian site if God's Law of love were the Law here! And we have the scripture as a massive reference work on what Love means ...

Then, with love as the basis of interaction here, men can sort out their differences NOT by asserting that they are right ,but by ALL accepting being reproved to scripture ,NOT any interpretation of it, but what it can be shown to say in itself as a WHOLE, as the One word of God for sinners who do not have al truth from God as promised to Jesus' followers ..

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:

It ould then be very evident that those who lead denominational division in this world have NOTreceived all truth from God in life before death, and so are not authorities of God's truth like the saints and prophets and Jesus of the scripture...

We should then all follow the scripture, not the diverse teachings of sinners that distort its unambiguous unique message [IF regarded as a whole] :-

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Jesus will simply reject all sinners at his return., as he has said so ... thus men need to stop being pompous about tradition and recognise that it has yielded diverse beliefs that simply CANNOT all be the one truth of God, and NONE bear up under the test of reproof to scripture... thus ,more respect is needed to the scripture and no resopect is due to tradition of men that has gone astray in diverse paganisms ..

Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye [all sinners!] that work iniquity.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

God already wrote the answers for sinners in scripture, ...so why not listen to Him just for once instead of listening to sinners ?

 

[Grizzly]

"'I believe in Jesus Christ, crucified, buried and resurrected!"

That wouldn't exclude enough people.

 

[stranger]

"'I believe in Jesus Christ, crucified, buried and resurrected!"

That wouldn't exclude enough people.

Jesus came to save all sinners, not to exclude them , not to exclude anyone , so why do you !!

 

[Grizzly]

Jesus came to save all sinners, not to exclude them , not to exclude anyone , so why do you !!

I don't want to exclude anyone, but its been my experience that any definition that would include Mormons has not been acceptable to the majority.

 

[pete56]

"'I believe in Jesus Christ, crucified, buried and resurrected!"

That wouldn't exclude enough people.

I don't wish to exclude any! Jesus didn't wish to either!

But I do want to ensure that those that are in are Christ followers!

Bless you

Pete

 

[Inan3]

Mistake

 

[Inan3]

Forget about the past, you can't change it.
Forget about the future, you can't predict it.
Forget about the present, I didn't get you one

Artificial intelligence is a wonderful thing.
I told my computer that today is my birthday,
and it said I needed an upgrade.

Some employees bought their boss a gift for his birthday. Before opening the gift, the boss shook it slightly, and noticed that it was wet in the corner. Touching his finger to the wet spot and tasting it, he asked, "A bottle of wine?"
His employees replied, "No."
Again, he touched his finger to the box and tasted the liquid. "A bottle of scotch?"
"His employees replied again, "No."
Finally the boss asked, "I give up. What is it?"
His workers responded, "A puppy."

What did George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Christopher Columbus all have in common?
They were all born on holidays.

Blowing out candles is good exercise for the lungs.

Q: What did one candle say to the other?
A: "Don't birthdays burn you up?"

What happened on this day sites?

http://www.scopesys.com/today/

http://mws.mcallen.isd.tenet.edu/mchi/library/swalker.html

 

[Inan3]

There is a problem here because of neglected details.

We are sons of God. True. But, Jesus was the only BEGOTTEN Son of God.

What does that mean?

The Greek reads.."mono genes" This can mean 'uniquely begotten.'

Jesus was born as Adam had been created. All other believers have never been born sons of God. We all must be born AGAIN sons of God.

I tend to get in trouble with certain believers when I attempt to define the humanity side of the hypostatic union. This does not imply Jesus was only man. This only defines the humanity side of Christ.

Hope that helps.


Grace and peace, GeneZ

Oh, this is so tempting to get into but possibly in another thread. I know what you mean about getting into trouble. I am finding that I am developing what is wise to say and what is not. I am really quite new to forums but I am enjoying the opportunity that they give to express my faith with thought and not with passion only.

Here's a scripture for all to think on but better to be expressed in that "other" thread I talked about.

What was the day referred to in Act 13:33 when the Father said, "this day" have I begotten you"? And pelase note that this word begotten is different from the one in the gospel of John

 

[Angel4Truth]

"'I believe in Jesus Christ, crucified, buried and resurrected!"

That wouldn't exclude enough people

Do you believe it?

 

[GenemZ]

Yeah all right, I see your point!

But the point is it is the very complexity that gets we Christians into the divisive arguments in the first place!

The fact of the Virgin birth and Trinity are doctrines that create arguments even amongst devout orthodox Christians, so my opinion is to stick to the basics that do Unite us!

Name these devout orthodox denominations, please?

As for the cults, well they are here already, as are the atheists and pantheists and occultists and a whole bunch of other 'ists' too!

There will be a semblance of order if we have different sections where one can post.

Under the current regime we have to accept that they are here and reach out to them with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified!

Most of them are here because they are inured to such appeals. They are veterans at not being effected. God lets them in here to test our faith.

Some are here to test out the powers they have access to. To see how they can effect this place.

I've been around a long time. I have seen a few things that most here would never dream of. I say that, because no one here seems to have a clue as to what can happen. We have been told to be wise as serpents, but harmless as doves. We have not been told to be wise as doves.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

I don't wish to exclude any! Jesus didn't wish to either!

But I do want to ensure that those that are in are Christ followers!

Bless you

Pete

That is contrary to Scripture!

Romans 16:17 (New International Version)
"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."
​

What does that tell you?

(Amplified Bible)
"I warn you to turn aside from them, to avoid them."
​

We are not to turn aside those who are new to the Gospel. But, we are to avoid those who have been well informed and have hardened their hearts and created counters to the faith.

I have debated a Jehovah Witness in another forum and that person made many want to not post there because of the blindness and inability to be reasoned with.

If one has knifed the Holy Spirit's appeal to their heart? Who are you to think you can do better? Avoid them.

2 John 1:10 (New International Version)
"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him."

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

Oh, this is so tempting to get into but possibly in another thread. I know what you mean about getting into trouble. I am finding that I am developing what is wise to say and what is not. I am really quite new to forums but I am enjoying the opportunity that they give to express my faith with thought and not with passion only.

Here's a scripture for all to think on but better to be expressed in that "other" thread I talked about.

What was the day referred to in Act 13:33 when the Father said, "this day" have I begotten you"? And pelase note that this word begotten is different from the one in the gospel of John

Problem in the past was...If we begin discussing this aspect with an open mind? Exploring Scripture? To determine truth?

Certain moderators would throw at us past heresies, that what was being discussed only may have concerned the same topic of the area of discussion. It became a knee jerk reaction to key words and phrases, when what the heresy spoke of had a different conclusion.

These ones did not tolerate their church traditions and conclusions being challenged in any way. That is when the Creed gimmick was used to bump out those who irritated their sense of being absolutely right about what they believe.

But? Ask them to debate the issue and reason it through? They would refuse. They were above debate! Their church says its so! No debate!

That was not said in a desire to flame anyone. But, it was said to expose past abuse by those who would take it as a flame. Because it did happen.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[freespiritchurch]

That is contrary to Scripture!

Romans 16:17 (New International Version)
"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them."
​

What does that tell you?

(Amplified Bible)
"I warn you to turn aside from them, to avoid them."
​

We are not to turn aside those who are new to the Gospel. But, we are to avoid those who have been well informed and have hardened their hearts and created counters to the faith.

I have debated a Jehovah Witness in another forum and that person made many want to not post there because of the blindness and inability to be reasoned with.

If one has knifed the Holy Spirit's appeal to their heart? Who are you to think you can do better? Avoid them.

2 John 1:10 (New International Version)
"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him."

In Christ, GeneZ
​

Gene, you should be careful about how you draw lines. You don't hold the beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed, and under the old system you would not be able to call yourself a Christian. I've been reading your explanation of how you were attacked by a clique. You weren't. You and the Nicene Creed just don't agree.

I see your case as one of the best arguments for the new system. I have found that relatively few Christians actually understand Trinitarian theology, and your beliefs are closer to the Creed than the practical views of a lot of people who are willing to repeat the phrases but who don't really understand what they mean. However, since most people don't delve into the kinds of issues that the Nicene Creed covers, their differences with the Creed never came out.

Still, make no mistake...if the old system were put back into place, you would be one of the people on the outside.

Alan

 

[Grizzly]

Do you believe it?[/font]

Do I believe what? In Christ, crucified, buried and resurrected? Or the fact that this simple creed would not exclude enough people?

If its the first, then no, I clearly do not. If its the second, then yes, I believe that simple creed would NOT be found to be acceptable to the majority here.

What i have learned in my many years at CF is that most Christians believe they have THE TRUTH, but yet you all disagree so much that from an outsiders perspective, its clear that you cannot all be correct.

So the only chance to Unite All Christians as One Body is to narrowly define what it means to be a Christian.

 

[Grizzly]

I have found that relatively few Christians actually understand Trinitarian theology, and your beliefs are closer to the Creed than the practical views of a lot of people who are willing to repeat the phrases but who don't really understand what they mean

I would argue that if you found a Christian who actually thought they understood Trinitarian Theology, then they would most certainly be wrong. Apparently its not meant to be comprehended, just believed.

 

[GenemZ]

Gene, you should be careful about how you draw lines. You don't hold the beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed, and under the old system you would not be able to call yourself a Christian. I've been reading your explanation of how you were attacked by a clique. You weren't. You and the Nicene Creed just don't agree.

Every time I asked to see where I did not agree? Was I told how I do not agree? No.

Instead, I was just given quizzes to see what I do believe. I wanted to know HOW I disagree with the Creed. A Creed written by men who were capable of believing in baptismal regeneration, no less.

I see your case as one of the best arguments for the new system. I have found that relatively few Christians actually understand Trinitarian theology, and your beliefs are closer to the Creed than the practical views of a lot of people who are willing to repeat the phrases but who don't really understand what they mean.

In other words? If someone wanted any of these superficial accepters you speak of, bumped? They could be put in the corner with what I call the Creed gimmick. Correct? Just start interrogating them.. And they can be booted when they had no satisfactory answer according to one church's tradition.

However, since most people don't delve into the kinds of issues that the Nicene Creed covers, their differences with the Creed never came out.

Correct! And from what I can gather? Those who hold to what the Creed intended in specifics? And believes to be truth? I wonder if these ones would pass the scrutiny of what Scripture actually teaches. Sola Scriptura. I do not think they can.

My guess? What is considered by these insiders to be the true meaning of the Creed? Is the same kind of thinking that caused Luther finding the need to break free.

Every time I asked for open debate with my accusers? To find out the specifics of what they found error in? They refused. No one wanted to reason. They refused to even show me the correction needed if I be wrong! What good is that? They did not even show me the offending posts. I was blind sided.

If I am wrong in what I believe? At least have the decency to show me where I err so I can get right with God. Their response? Was one of a bureaucratic wall of separation. They were not accountable to anyone but themselves.

Still, make no mistake...if the old system were put back into place, you would be one of the people on the outside.

Should I be surprised? Since no one was willing to show me what I said that disagreed? And, what would be needed to agree?

In my opinion. It was tool used by some to secure their sense of ecumenical control over those who post here.

There are people in this world who are control freaks. We know they exist. Who are they? They work themselves into positions of power over others if they can. I do not know if they were. But, they gave me no indication that they were not.

The old system I believe Erwin saw was a mess. That is why I believe he did what he did. For, the best way to run off control freaks is to cause them to lose all sense of there being anything to control.

Most importantly! Back to our first love!

I believe the Trinity is something that has yet to be fully understood. There is always room to grow. There has to be more that can be known. If the Creed were the only standard? We could not grow in our understanding of why there is a Trinity. It then becomes a tool to retard our spiritual growth if we must remain in 380 AD, or there abouts.

The Creed would be the suppression of spiritual growth for those who desire to understand the Trinity in greater depth than the Creed could ever convey.... which is no understanding at all. Since when is understanding gained by being required to repeat a statement by rote?

Alan, I do appreciate your feedback.

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[GenemZ]

I would argue that if you found a Christian who actually thought they understood Trinitarian Theology, then they would most certainly be wrong. Apparently its not meant to be comprehended, just believed.

Funny. That was one argument I was given when I asked why I believed wrongly concerning the Trinity. "Its not to be understood." My sin? I was attempting to understand and explain it where I thought I could. I was not trying to disprove it.

There is nothing in Scripture that can not be understood over time given enough spiritual growth. That is if God had purpose to open your eyes. Then! You will be made to understand it. Grace!

Grace makes man able to see what in our natural minds we are blind to.

2 Corinthians 1:12b-14 (New International Version)
" We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God's grace. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.

And I hope that, as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus."
​

Many draw the line as to how much they want to understand. Because they are not willing to suffer for truth more than they want to be accountable for. They want to keep their understanding within their "comfort zone."

Now? If you present to them what they do not want to be accountable for? That's one of the reasons for persecution and the exclusion of others. Paul was hated by many of the Jewish believers because he would have made them accountable for the understanding of Grace. Their comfort zone was to be zealous for the Law.

In Christ, GeneZ
​

 

[J4Jesus]

Do you believe it?[/font]

Angel
I think he was just quoting Pete.
But even if a person does believe that, the difference is to believe He is Diety. Even satan knows and ' believes' who He is, like some have head knowledge. But it means believing with the heart, "believe in", "trust in," "rely on"

 

[GenemZ]

Gene, you should be careful about how you draw lines. You don't hold the beliefs expressed in the Nicene Creed, and under the old system you would not be able to call yourself a Christian. I've been reading your explanation of how you were attacked by a clique. You weren't. You and the Nicene Creed just don't agree.

I am not for a return to the Nicene Creed. Its contains at some points what I see as fuzzy theology.

I am for a Statement of faith of the likes that appear in most Protestant churches today.

For example? To say one is Eternally begotten? That is an oxymoron. What is Eternal has always existed. It can not be begotten! But we must confess that it is the case?

If anything... it was the plan for Jesus being born that was planned in Eternity, before time. In the mind of God he was eternally begotten. But, as far as being begotten (Jesus) that took place in time.

In spite of it being an oxymoron as its worded, there are ways to reason as long as one understands what the terms mean, to show how the soul of Jesus (not his body) was begotten of the Father outside of time. In that sense, his soul was begotten in Eternity. But, not Eternally. Eternally means incapable of being begotten, for it always has been existing!


Jesus was always in the mind of God. So? In that sense he was Eternally begotten. But? That must apply to us as well if that definition is to hold. For we were always in the mind of God!

Now? To say that Jesus is the same substance as the Father? Fine. But, as far as his humanity? Is begging for theological suicide if its to be taken to mean that. Yet? It seems to be what they were looking for. His humanity was born. His body was produced with Mary and the Holy Spirit.

If I state my case according to Scripture, and what it tells us? Their understanding is? Who knows? The church that devised the Creed is known for creating traditions which were the cause of those who are Sola Scriptura to break away. What many of us are today.


That's what I am trying to find out. Was what I disagreed with according to tradition? Or, Scripture?

No one will tell me. Why should that be? Tell me that I do not believe what I should? But, refuse to tell me what it should be? Kangaroo court-istic.

Do they believe the humanity of Christ is the same substance as the Father? How can that be?
Humanity is not Deity. If it were? Jesus would not have had to be born of Mary. Yet we are told we must believe Jesus was begotten of the Father Eternally of the same substance. The same substance is his Deity! And? Deity can not be begotten! Deity always was! Yes, the Creed has its problems.


Something tells me that the traditions of the church is what is telling them what to believe. Things that Scripture does not teach. That his humanity was the same substance as the Father. How? His Deity is the same substance. But? Deity can not be begotten!

They believe that way? We should dump the Creed. Its not the correct tool for uniting ALL Christians. For, it can be used to exclude anyone who is not of the denominations who claim authorship to that Creed. For it requires a belief in church tradition, not Scripture.


I believe the Creed was originally chosen for this forum because no one at that time realized how it could be abused against Protestantism (and its derivatives). For those who take their study of Scripture seriously!

I have yet to receive a straight answer. I am not sure they can give one. In what way did I disagree with the Creed? Was it in a manner which is according to Scripture?

In Christ, GeneZ
​