you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[Uphill Battle]

you just made a thread abotu how you no longer believe in OSAS -- you didnt find 100% agreement there did you? is salvation predestined, is it once for all, can it be lost, is it a path to Godliness, do our works factor in, do they not factor in? etc etc etc -- no unity on even the "heart of the gospel"

yes, I did. I have my doubts about OSAS. However, I have NO doubt in Christ as Lord and Saviour. Neither do you.

The Gospel is pretty darn clear. It isn't "he who believes in him, and in these list of theological points, shall be saved."

nor is it "he who believes in him, and also is a member of this particular organization."

It's He who believes in him. he who confesses with his mouth, and believes in his heart.

everything EVERYTHING else is a distant second.

 

[holo]

um no. i wish we agreed, but im not going to pretend that we do. Christendom cant even agree on what salvation means. it doesnt get much worse than that. everyone always says oh we agree on the essentials -- but we cant even agree on salvation!

And if you had gathered the lame man and the blind man and the bleeding woman who were healed, Thomas, Peter, Paul, the Roman official, Lazarus, Martha (and you and me for that matter), you would no doubt hear a lot of different stories about who this Jesus is. None of them would be right, because Jesus Christ isn't fully fathomable. And none of them would be wrong. And that's a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

I like the way the blind man put it when they interrogated him about who Jesus was - "who He is, I don't know. But I know that I was blind and now I can see."

 

[sunlover1]

yes, I did. I have my doubts about OSAS. However, I have NO doubt in Christ as Lord and Saviour. Neither do you.

The Gospel is pretty darn clear. It isn't "he who believes in him, and in these list of theological points, shall be saved."

nor is it "he who believes in him, and also is a member of this particular organization."

It's He who believes in him. he who confesses with his mouth, and believes in his heart.

everything EVERYTHING else is a distant second.

When people start thinking they're the 'right' ones
and all others are wrong, their 'rightness' becomes
their most important 'asset', and they're no longer
teachable.

The more I learn, the more I see that I know so little.

 

[Albion]

the Incarnate Logos crucified and resurrected of course that doesnt mean the same thing to me and you, and we could get many different answers from many different Christians as to what that means.

People throw up so many smokescreens the minute it is suggested that the non-essentials are not to be confused with the essentials of the faith. For one, they say "we can't agree on the essentials"--as if that makes any difference to the point that the essentials are what matter.

We can discuss the essentials, or what seem to be the essentials. Immediately responding that we disagree on the essentials THEREFORE we must make doctrine out of a hundred non-essentials just doesn't make sense.

 

[holo]

Good point, Albion!

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

People throw up so many smokescreens the minute it is suggested that the non-essentials are not to be confused with the essentials of the faith. For one, they say "we can't agree on the essentials"--as if that makes any difference to the point that the essentials are what matter.

We can discuss the essentials, or what seem to be the essentials. Immediately responding that we disagree on the essentials THEREFORE we must make doctrine out of a hundred non-essentials just doesn't make sense.

And who defines "the essentials?" And why is it that when we say thus and such are essentials, Protestants say that we are making non-essentials, essentials?
Could it be that such Protestants have reserved for themselves the right to define
1. The canon
2. The essentials
3. Epistemology

If so, it would seem as if such Protestants presume unto themselves Apostolic authority over those who are not Protestants.

This is ironic.

 

[jckstraw72]

We can discuss the essentials, or what seem to be the essentials. Immediately responding that we disagree on the essentials THEREFORE we must make doctrine out of a hundred non-essentials just doesn't make sense

which are these non-essentials?

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

And who defines "the essentials?" And why is it that when we say thus and such are essentials, Protestants say that we are making non-essentials, essentials?
Could it be that such Protestants have reserved for themselves the right to define
1. The canon
2. The essentials
3. Epistemology

If so, it would seem as if such Protestants presume unto themselves Apostolic authority over those who are not Protestants.

This is ironic.

I don't believe it's a matter of the Protestant's 'right' to interpret Scripture differently but rather the Protestant's 'ability'.

Go Cards!

 

[HisKid1973]

OrthodoxyUSA unsubscribes.
Forgive me...

Not to derail but what does this mean when people post subscribe/ unsubscribe?

 

[jckstraw72]

i really cant figure out why, if doctrines are so unimportant, that Christ and the Apostles took the time to teach them, and why St. Paul mentions the essentiality of maintaining purity of doctrine in like all his letters.

 

[Uphill Battle]

i really cant figure out why, if doctrines are so unimportant, that Christ and the Apostles took the time to teach them, and why St. Paul mentions the essentiality of maintaining purity of doctrine in like all his letters.

Purity of WHAT doctrines? Does he mention them by name?

 

[jckstraw72]

Purity of WHAT doctrines? Does he mention them by name?

all the ones in Scripture. why else would they be in there? he also says to keep the traditions that have been received -- he doesnt say pick and choose which you feel are important

 

[christianmomof3]

Not to derail but what does this mean when people post subscribe/ unsubscribe?

Well, I cannot speak for him, and I have never done that, but it probably is to let others know that he has given up on this thread, is no longer watching it and won't be replying to anything on it, so if someone wished to question a post of his, he won't be around to answer it so don't bother asking about his posts.
That is just my guess though.
Sometimes I do unsubscribe from a thread because it has meandered off to another topic or gone into personal arguements between a few members or gotten ugly or it is just clear that it is not going anywhere and I chose not to waste my time with it anymore. But I have never posted that I am unsubscribing to one. Perhaps if I had been really involved in one though I might do that to let people know I won't be replying any more though.

 

[christianmomof3]

all the ones in Scripture. why else would they be in there? he also says to keep the traditions that have been received -- he doesnt say pick and choose which you feel are important

What is essential and most important, as some others have pointed out here, is Christ.
We will never all arrive at the oneness of the doctrines and that is not a goal. But, we will all arrive at the oneness of the faith.

Ephesians4: 13
Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith and of the full knowledge of the Son of God, at a full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,



In v. 3 the oneness of the Spirit is the oneness of the divine life in reality; in this verse the oneness is the oneness of our living in practicality. We already have the oneness of the divine life in reality. We need only to keep it. But we need to go on until we arrive at the oneness of our living in practicality. This aspect of oneness is of two things: the faith and the full knowledge of the Son of God. As revealed in Jude 3, 2 Tim. 4:7, and 1 Tim. 6:21, the faith does not refer to the act of our believing but to the things in which we believe, such as the divine person of Christ and His redemptive work accomplished for our salvation. The full knowledge of the Son of God is the apprehension of the revelation concerning the Son of God for our experience. The more we grow in life, the more we will cleave to the faith and to the apprehension of Christ, and the more we will drop all the minor and meaner doctrinal concepts that cause divisions. Then we will arrive at, or attain to, the practical oneness; that is, we will arrive at a full-grown man, at the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.
http://online.recoveryversion.org/

 

[jckstraw72]

What is essential and most important, as some others have pointed out here, is Christ.

the Mormons and JWs and Muslims all have Christ ... perhaps what we believe ABOUT Christ is important too?

We will never all arrive at the oneness of the doctrines and that is not a goal. But, we will all arrive at the oneness of the faith.

so then St. Paul was just fooling himself?

 

[Uphill Battle]

all the ones in Scripture. why else would they be in there? he also says to keep the traditions that have been received -- he doesnt say pick and choose which you feel are important

what it really boils down to, is that anyone can use that statement by Paul to say "look, you have to believe my doctrines."

 

[christianmomof3]

the Mormons and JWs and Muslims all have Christ ... perhaps what we believe ABOUT Christ is important too?

yes - in my next post I stated and others have stated that it is important to believe in the divine person of Christ and His redemptive work accomplished for our salvation.

however, which direction you should face when you pray and many other doctrines that people often argue about do not affect our salvation.

 

[jckstraw72]

however, which direction you should face when you pray and many other doctrines that people often argue about do not affect our salvation.

i dont think anyone would base unity on which direction you face when praying. im talking about stuff like salvation, baptism, eucharist, ecclesiology, etc

what it really boils down to, is that anyone can use that statement by Paul to say "look, you have to believe my doctrines."

i can use it to say doctrines ARE important. who has the correct doctrines are of course a whole nother issue.

the opposite POV, that only the "heart of the gospel" matters can be used to dismiss any doctrine that isnt agreed upon so you can still say there is some kind of unity.

 

[Uphill Battle]

i can use it to say doctrines ARE important. who has the correct doctrines are of course a whole nother issue.

the opposite POV, that only the "heart of the gospel" matters can be used to dismiss any doctrine that isnt agreed upon so you can still say there is some kind of unity.

sure. Doctrines are important.

of course, who has correct doctrines are a very LINKED issue, because those who have long list of "thou shalt believes" point to a passage such as this to validate their list in the first place.

And I'm aware there is no unity. I didn't pretend that there WAS. Every single group is spitting at the others, telling them how wrong they are for not believing XYZ instead of XWZ.

which is sad. Really sad. Nobody is exempt from this, of course. We have frothing at the mouth fundamentalists who condemn everyone for not following their strict moral code. We have EO, and RCC, who pretend not to judge, but raise their eyebrows and cluck their tongues at those who have abandoned "The Church"(tm) We have middle of the road Churches, who badmouth both the EO and RCC, as well as the "Protestants" (when the EO and RCC call THEM Protestants too)

We have liberals who do whatever they want and call us all unloving because we "hate" them.

not ONE Bloody organization is exempt, and everyone claims that they ARE, it's everyone ELSE that's at fault for disunity.

 

[Philothei]

UB with all respect ....what is your point? your thread is just that 'we do not like it" and I think instead of "arguing" would be best of starting agreeing as to where the truth must lay.....because not all opinions can be right.. that is obvious. if you want to dish the baby along with the bath water....go ahead do it... but do not come back pointing out your finger... at EO for it....