Wiki Poll: Opening Statement

[Lisa0315]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity

Wiki-pedia is the antichrist!

 

[Debi1967]

Wiki-pedia is the antichrist!

 

[Debi1967]

This is the problem with wiki-ness.

A Fundamentalist has come in and created another poll on the exact same issue as this one.

Makes no sense. Something has to be done to prevent stuff like this.

I know I voted no and I stated in that thread why was there a need for two polls on the same issue

BTW this is pollitis lately .... can we maybe just post one poll at a time and stick with that issue until it is resolved.

 

[Albion]

I think that is too narrow, just in my humble opinion. I understand that there are traditions that may or may not be able to be supported by Scripture, and I would want to exclude that. However, there are traditions that give us rich meaning behind Scripture. For example, to know that the reason that John was on the Isle of Patmos and what happened before that. The Book of Martyrs (spelling???), the reason early Christians used the sign of the cross. There is so much beauty in traditions.

I feel that this is a misunderstanding of what he wrote (which seemed pretty good to me, BYW).

He carefully and clearly included on issues of theology and morality, so that's what I was also trying to say when I explained that the meaning has to do with significant issues (I think was the way I put it). No one's going to go to the mat over historical facts or background material to items such as the sign of the cross, etc.

Quite possibly this problem arises from some of us having dealt with the matter of Tradition, one way or the other, in the churches of our experience whereas the word is not part of the vocabulary of other churches, or, worse Christians of those churches know it only as the creation of doctrine out of human speculation--something we also oppose.

It really was a sound proposal for a compromise wording that we all could live with, I think, if we understand what is meant by the word traditional.

 

[Albion]

But, bro, your thoughts on music and women..

If you read again those points that identify a fundamentalist, those which define what a fundamentalist is, you will not find music on the list or women per se.

Virgin Birth, Vicarious atonement, Deity of Christ, reliability of scripture, etc. yes, but nothing like what you are talking about.

 

[Debi1967]

[/COLOR]

If you read again those points that identify a fundamentalist, those which define what a fundamentalist is, you will not find music on the list or women per se.

Virgin Birth, Vicarious atonement, Deity of Christ, reliability of scripture, etc. yes, but nothing like what you are talking about.

Now I definitely think we need to define Tradition

 

[Iosias]

Now I definitely think we need to define Tradition

What is needed is a minimal statement of what it means to be a conservative Christian. If you (RCC) and I (evangelical) are both conservatives then neither sola scriptura nor Tradition define what it is to be a conservative Christian.

I would ask you to agree with me that a conservative Christian affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity
2. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
3. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
4. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
5. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
6. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;

Now shock horror these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith i.e. without these Christianity is not Christianity.

 

[Albion]

Now I definitely think we need to define Tradition

I think that first we need to define fundamentalist since someone has tried to exclude them from this forum. That is based, obviously, upon not knowing what a fundamentalist is, but also, there is no reason a fundamentalist cannot be a conservative Christian any more than a Catholic or Baptist couldn't.

To say that "this isn't a fundamentalist forum" is not the same as saying that "fundamentalists don't belong here since there is a fundamentalist forum already." It is not an exclusively fundamentalist forum is what the first of those two statement say--and that's the only one that is correct.

Well, there is also an Anglican forum and a Catholic forum and and a Lutheran forum in which both conservatives and liberals post. Are only non-denominational Christians supposed to be posting here? It's ridiculous.

That said, I am in symathy with the idea of wanting to explore the meaning of "traditional." What out of that which I wrote earlier is unclear?

 

[Debi1967]

What is needed is a minimal statement of what it means to be a conservative Christian. If you (RCC) and I (evangelical) are both conservatives then neither sola scriptura nor Tradition define what it is to be a conservative Christian.

I would ask you to agree with me that a conservative Christian affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity
2. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
3. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
4. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
5. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
6. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;

Now shock horror these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith i.e. without these Christianity is not Christianity.

Actually I can agree to those principles being set forth .....

 

[Debi1967]

I think that first we need to define fundamentalist since someone has tried to exclude them from this forum. That is based, obviously, upon not knowing what a fundamentalist is, but also, there is no reason a fundamentalist cannot be a conservative Christian any more than a Catholic or Baptist couldn't.

To say that "this isn't a fundamentalist forum" is not the same as saying that "fundamentalists don't belong here since there is a fundamentalist forum already." It is not an exclusively fundamentalist forum is what the first of those two statement say--and that's the only one that is correct.

Well, there is also an Anglican forum and a Catholic forum and and a Lutheran forum in which both conservatives and liberals post. Are only non-denominational Christians supposed to be posting here? It's ridiculous.

That said, I am in symathy with the idea of wanting to explore the meaning of "traditional." What out of that which I wrote earlier is unclear?

fundys should be allowed to post her I believe that has been also said what we were trying to express in not that fundys should not be allowed but merely that this not ONLY a fundy forum

 

[Albion]

Actually I can agree to those principles being set forth .....

Sure. Me too. That's why all the furor over the definition should not be happening, or the nonsense about fundamentalists not supposed to be here.

Anyone who believes in the Bible-based faith that we cherish and continue to hold to against the innovations of liberal society should be here!

 

[Albion]

fundys should be allowed to post her I believe that has been also said what we were trying to express in not that fundys should not be allowed but merely that this not ONLY a fundy forum

I believe that most of us would agree with that. I do.

BUT there is one who has said that a conservative who has posted in the fundamentalist forum ought to go. He was said to be a fundamentalist on the basis of music preference, of all nutty things. It was all of that which I was referring to and, frankly, was horrified to read.

Fortunately, the one being told to leave isn't being bullied, and you are probably right that others here see things properly. Thank you for your comments which make me feel that this won't be a problem. It was, after all, just one person's personal crusade and nothing official.

 

[Debi1967]

I believe that most of us would agree with that. I do.

BUT there is one who has said that a conservative who has posted in the fundamentalist forum ought to go. He was said to be a fundamentalist on the basis of music preference, of all nutty things. It was all of that which I was referring to and, frankly, was horrified to read.

Fortunately, the one being told to leave isn't being bullied, and you are probably right that others here see things properly. Thank you for your comments which make me feel that this won't be a problem. It was, after all, just one person's personal crusade and nothing official.

Unfortunately you are going to get that in any of the forums. It shouldn't happen but it does we can't control what other people think and do and say can we. All we can do is try to rectify or make some rules that will disallow for the problem to be so rampant in the future...

Like I did propose that we make a rule in here stating that if you assert x and y that it be backed up with either church documents or Scripture in order to get to z when engaged in argumentation

 

[Albion]

Unfortunately you are going to get that in any of the forums. It shouldn't happen but it does we can't control what other people think and do and say can we. All we can do is try to rectify or make some rules that will disallow for the problem to be so rampant in the future...

You are right. This was one voice only, and your comments have made me feel better about it all.

Like I did propose that we make a rule in here stating that if you assert x and y that it be backed up with either church documents or Scripture in order to get to z when engaged in argumentation

which seems almost obvious, but again you are correct. Many posts just go on "I'm telling you. So listen up."

 

[TomUK]

What is needed is a minimal statement of what it means to be a conservative Christian. If you (RCC) and I (evangelical) are both conservatives then neither sola scriptura nor Tradition define what it is to be a conservative Christian.

I would ask you to agree with me that a conservative Christian affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity
2. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
3. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
4. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
5. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
6. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;

Now shock horror these are the fundamentals of the Christian faith i.e. without these Christianity is not Christianity.

I think i would question substiutionary atonement as necessary to be a conservative Christian.

 

[Lisa0315]

I think i would question substiutionary atonement as necessary to be a conservative Christian.

Why?

Lisa

 

[Albion]

I think i would question substiutionary atonement as necessary to be a conservative Christian.

If that is the only one, I'd say we are drawing closer together and finding that we have more in common than it looked yesterday.

We can resolve this, friends, I am sure of that if we talk to each other.

 

[TomUK]

Why?

Lisa

I personally haven't come to a conclusion yet but there have been been a huge variety of atonement theories proposed throughout history. Substitutionary atonement is just one.

 

[Debi1967]

I think i would question substiutionary atonement as necessary to be a conservative Christian.

Sub`sti`tu´tion`a`ry
a.1.Of or pertaining to substitution; substitutional.
Didn't Jesus essentially die for us and therefore substitute himself for us

 

[Albion]

I personally haven't come to a conclusion yet but there have been been a huge variety of atonement theories proposed throughout history. Substitutionary atonement is just one.

I'm not going to fight anyone over this, Tom, but maybe Ragged Robin is right about this. The term doesn't mean, does it, that Jesus paid something to the devil or any other of the unusual theories that sometimes come up, just that his death justified men who could not be saved by the Law. That's a substitution.