NationStates Jolt Archive

How many of you are Evangelical?

I don't mean this label that liberals throw on anyone who so much thinks the name God in their politics. I mean the belief system proposed by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers:

We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, made possible by the works of Christ alone, as told by the authority of Scripture alone.

So, how many of you agree with that statement? If you agree, you're Evangelical.

If you haven't already guessed, I agree with the Reformers.

What about Anglicans? anyways, I'm lutheran, non-evangelical

Yep I agree with that Statement. My church is a member of the Evangelical Free Church of America, however we are independentally governed like many other churches in our national church.

What about Anglicans? anyways, I'm lutheran, non-evangelical

But do you agree with their statement?

How many of you are Evangelical?

I don't mean this label that liberals throw on anyone who so much thinks the name God in their politics. I mean the belief system proposed by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers:

We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, made possible by the works of Christ alone, as told by the authority of Scripture alone.

So, how many of you agree with that statement? If you agree, you're Evangelical.

If you haven't already guessed, I agree with the Reformers.
[/quote]

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?" He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?" He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. -- Emo Phillips

Reminds me of that quote for some reason lol

LOL thats funny...and yet somepeople are like that too. Well not to the point of pushing someone off a bridge or anything.

What about Anglicans? anyways, I'm lutheran, non-evangelical

Anglicans left because the King wanted a divorce, not because they disagreed with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

After they left, they kept teetering between Evangelical and Non-Evangelical. And when they were Evangelical, they teetered between Reformed and Arminian (though more often they were Reformed).

Right now, they, like so many other Protestant denominations, have left Evangelicalism for moral relativism. Look at the Episcopal Church which is basically the Anglican Church in America.

I'm a liberal Anglo-Catholic.

Reminds me of that quote for some reason lol[/QUOTE]

Except that most thinking do not believe that picayune things determine salvation.

Not that they aren't important: I'll go to my Pentacostal friend's youth group because she's a Christian and the church is Christian also, but I would never become a member there: they disagree with the Reformed tradition.

However, most of the Church beleives that Evangelicalism is necessary for salvation. Now, that is debateable, but it is a much more basic and fundamental idea than whether one ought to be baptized at birth or not.

Except that most thinking do not believe that picayune things determine salvation.

Not that they aren't important: I'll go to my Pentacostal friend's youth group because she's a Christian and the church is Christian also, but I would never become a member there: they disagree with the Reformed tradition.

However, most of the Church beleives that Evangelicalism is necessary for salvation. Now, that is debateable, but it is a much more basic and fundamental idea than whether one ought to be baptized at birth or not.
I know it was a JOKE making light of all the silly little differences people make up a whole new religion for (well that’s one of the things it is making light of)

Well what I wave always been taught and I believe whole heartedly is that babtism is an outward expression of an inward decision. You get baptized to express the fact thata you have already made the decision to believe in Jesus and followhim fully, not the other way around. The Bible supports this.

How many of you are Evangelical?

I don't mean this label that liberals throw on anyone who so much thinks the name God in their politics. I mean the belief system proposed by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and the other Reformers:

We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, made possible by the works of Christ alone, as told by the authority of Scripture alone.

So, how many of you agree with that statement? If you agree, you're Evangelical.

If you haven't already guessed, I agree with the Reformers.

I would agree with part of that statement. I have no trust in the Scriptures as they were written, interpreted and rewritten by men. Which makes them at best, a loose guide and at worst, a tool for the powerful to control the weak.

I also have my misgivings about the Christ alone part. I believe Christ is my persona savior, but I am not prepared to condemn good people simply because they believe otherwise.

But then again, I'm the crazy one. :)

I'm so reformed, I don't even believe in God.

I would agree with part of that statement. I have no trust in the Scriptures as they were written, interpreted and rewritten by men. Which makes them at best, a loose guide and at worst, a tool for the powerful to control the weak.

I also have my misgivings about the Christ alone part. I believe Christ is my persona savior, but I am not prepared to condemn good people simply because they believe otherwise.

But then again, I'm the crazy one. :)

I thought it was a central tenet in christianity that a human cannot redeem himself on his own, that salvation can only be obtained through the mercy of God. No matter how good the human is.

Well what I wave always been taught and I believe whole heartedly is that babtism is an outward expression of an inward decision. You get baptized to express the fact thata you have already made the decision to believe in Jesus and followhim fully, not the other way around. The Bible supports this.

I agree with you - I break with most other Presbyterains on this issue.

I also have my misgivings about the Christ alone part. I believe Christ is my persona savior, but I am not prepared to condemn good people simply because they believe otherwise.

What about "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father through me."? You say you don't believe in Scriptures infallibility, so then what do you base your belief in Chrit as your personal Savior on?

I don't mean to be creating a debate, but I have never understood how persons follow this belief and still call themselves Christians.

I thought it was a central tenet in christianity that a human cannot redeem himself on his own, that salvation can only be obtained through the mercy of God. No matter how good the human is.

Do you believe that an otherwise good person has to believe in God to receive His mercy?

Do you believe that an otherwise good person has to believe in God to receive His mercy?

While I don't speak for Kevlanakia, it is my belief that no one is good. (I have Scritpture to back that up if you want it.) Everyone has been tainted by sin: they are totally depraved. That being said, no action is good. Some are better than others, but none is good.

Therefore, since there are no good persons or good actions, I think the question, at least from my viewpoint, is moot. (I think that's the word I want).

What about "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father [but] through me."? You say you don't believe in Scriptures infallibility, so then what do you base your belief in Chrit as your personal Savior on?

I don't mean to be creating a debate, but I have never understood how persons follow this belief and still call themselves Christians.

I think the point is that Lunatic doesn't necessarily believe that Scripture has been translated infallibly. It has passed through the hands of scores of men, and mistakes (or agendas) could have been propagated.

I wouldn't dare to say that "If you don't believe exactly as I believe, you're going to H__l." I believe that I have interpreted Scripture correctly, but I am fallible, the disciples who wrote scripture were fallible, the scribes who translated were fallible, and *gasp* so were the Church leaders who determined what books made up the Canon.

There could be essential information not in our Canon.

My belief is that God looks at our heart. If we are doing our best to accept that He has saved us by grace, that we are doing our best to follow His commands and to interpret them, He is merciful. He doesn't require perfection, only our best attempt at obedience.

I agree with you - I break with most other Presbyterains on this issue.

That seems to be a deciding factor with some people. My whole thing is where does the Bible, anywhere, say that you baptize babies. That you were baptized as a baby and that makes you a Christian. The Bible clearly states "By grace you have been saved by faith..." not babtism, that comes after.

I think the point is that Lunatic doesn't necessarily believe that Scripture has been translated infallibly. It has passed through the hands of scores of men, and mistakes (or agendas) could have been propagated.

I wouldn't dare to say that "If you don't believe exactly as I believe, you're going to H__l." I believe that I have interpreted Scripture correctly, but I am fallible, the disciples who wrote scripture were fallible, the scribes who translated were fallible, and *gasp* so were the Church leaders who determined what books made up the Canon.

There could be essential information not in our Canon.

My belief is that God looks at our heart. If we are doing our best to accept that He has saved us by grace, that we are doing our best to follow his commands and to interpret them, He is merciful. He doesn't require perfection only our best attempt at obedience.

Then what basis is there for your belief if Scripture is fallible!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

We have many of the earliest manuscripts and there have been so many copies made, we are able to see what mistakes or alterations have been made in a particular translation. The Canon wasn't just slapped together, it was carefully selected.

And do you not agree that it would be better for stuff to be left out, than to have wrong stuff in?

What about "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father through me."? You say you don't believe in Scriptures infallibility, so then what do you base your belief in Chrit as your personal Savior on?

I don't mean to be creating a debate, but I have never understood how persons follow this belief and still call themselves Christians.

Well, I never really gave it too much thought from that angle, but I'll try.

For a beginning, I believe there was a man named Jesus Christ. Whether he was an aspect of God, God's son, an ordinary man or all three is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is that he died to give mankind a message. He then proved that death was not the end of life, but the beginning before he left for Parts Unknown. I'd like to believe he ascended to Heaven.

The message He gave us was that to live forever in God's Kingdom, we needed only to regret our sins, live good lives, love eachother unconditionally and to accept these as Christ's message from God.

However, as Christ himself pointed out, his disciples were men. With the flaws and ambitions of men. The scriptures were written by them. Then rewritten by other men. Then translated by still others who worked in the service of kings and other powerful men with their own agendas. Then retranslated again.

I believe that Christ's message was a simple one and became buried under two millennia of politics and wishful thinking. But that doesn't make His message any less clear. I also believe that the best place to find His message is in ourselves and not in the rantings of religious leaders with questionable motives.

That seems to be a deciding factor with some people. My whole thing is where does the Bible, anywhere, say that you baptize babies. That you were baptized as a baby and that makes you a Christian. The Bible clearly states "By grace you have been saved by faith..." not babtism, that comes after.

Well, Presbyterians say that baptism is a an outward sign of an inward reality, not that it saves anyone.

But most point to verses about entire households being baptized by the Apostles and the similarities between baptism and OT circumcision. I don't buy those two arguments, a fact which drives my father crazy!

Then what basis is there for your belief if Scripture is fallible!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

We have many of the earliest manuscripts and there have been so many copies made, we are able to see what mistakes or alterations have been made in a particular translation. The Canon wasn't just slapped together, it was carefully selected.

And do you not agree that it would be better for stuff to be left out, than to have wrong stuff in?

Who decided what was selected? Or what was the right stuff and wrong stuff? Did God select it? Or did the Roman Catholic Church?

Well, I never really gave it too much thought from that angle, but I'll try.

For a beginning, I believe there was a man named Jesus Christ. Whether he was an aspect of God, God's son, an ordinary man or all three is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is that he died to give mankind a message. He then proved that death was not the end of life, but the beginning before he left for Parts Unknown. I'd like to believe he ascended to Heaven.

The message He gave us was that to live forever in God's Kingdom, we needed only to regret our sins, live good lives, love eachother unconditionally and to accept these as Christ's message from God.

However, as Christ himself pointed out, his disciples were men. With the flaws and ambitions of men. The scriptures were written by them. Then rewritten by other men. Then translated by still others who worked in the service of kings and other powerful men with their own agendas. Then retranslated again.

I believe that Christ's message was a simple one and became buried under two millennia of politics and wishful thinking. But that doesn't make His message any less clear. I also believe that the best place to find His message is in ourselves and not in the rantings of religious leaders with questionable motives.

My point is that if the Apostles are not trustworthy, and they recorded the events of Jesus' life and His words, how do you know which events and words are trustworthy?

My point is that if the Apostles are not trustworthy, and they recorded the events of Jesus' life and His words, how do you know which events and words are trustworthy?

I trust my own judgement. For Christ lives on beside me. :)

Well, Presbyterians say that baptism is a an outward sign of an inward reality, not that it saves anyone.

But most point to verses about entire households being baptized by the Apostles and the similarities between baptism and OT circumcision. I don't buy those two arguments, a fact which drives my father crazy!

LOL I bet it does. And I have heard that arguement before. But they don't know if the children, if there were, had actually chosen to believe in Jesus. I myself accept Christ when I was 4 years old. But I unlike many people at that age, knew what I was doing. And I in no way did it because my parents made me or anything.

Then what basis is there for your belief if Scripture is fallible!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


My belief is in Jesus Christ. We can't know His exact words, (nobody actually believes the words attributed to Christ are a direct quotes seeing as the earliest work included in the canon was written at least thirty years after his death) but we can know what sort of person He was. Even with the different perspectives of the author, we get a pretty consistent view of the Man that Jesus was. Each author also adds a different part of him, but He is consistent, even if the characterizations aren't perfect. We can know the gist of His message, and to me, that gist is enough.

We have many of the earliest manuscripts and there have been so many copies made, we are able to see what mistakes or alterations have been made in a particular translation. The Canon wasn't just slapped together, it was carefully selected.

It was formed by a group of MEN. Men (women) are fallible. They are imperfect. They may have included or excluded something, even with best efforts, that shouldn't have been included or excluded. As well, many Biblical scholars agree that there definitely could have been a pre-set expectation of what the canon would "essentially" say, and that it could have been subconsciously molded to say that.


And do you not agree that it would be better for stuff to be left out, than to have wrong stuff in?

Not necessarily, because much of what was left out of the official canon was left out for political reasons.

Who decided what was selected? Or what was the right stuff and wrong stuff? Did God select it? Or did the Roman Catholic Church?

It was God through the Church. If you believe that the Holy Ghost/Spirit prompts Men, then anyhting that a true Christian does has in some way been influenced by the Holy Spirit, because that Christian is listening for the prompt. That doesn't mean he or she obeys the prompt, but he or she is influenced by it.

And if there are more than one Christian deciding something (the more Christians the better, if they are truly Christian) then it is less likely that there will be error or sin in the decision. And a council of the Church agreed on which books are divinely inspired and which aren't by following very strict guidelines.

And it was the Church, before the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox separated. After the separation, both the RC's and EO's questioned the authority of the council and relaxed the guidelines to let in other books (the Apocryphas) to meet their agendas. Protestants reject these books.

It was God through the Church. If you believe that the Holy Ghost/Spirit prompts Men, then anyhting that a true Christian does has in some way been influenced by the Holy Spirit, because that Christian is listening for the prompt. That doesn't mean he or she obeys the prompt, but he or she is influenced by it.

And if there are more than one Christian deciding something (the more Christians the better, if they are truly Christian) then it is less likely that there will be error or sin in the decision. And a council of the Church agreed on which books are divinely inspired and which aren't by following very strict guidelines.

And it was the Church, before the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox separated. After the separation, both the RC's and EO's questioned the authority of the council and relaxed the guidelines to let in other books (the Apocryphas) to meet their agendas. Protestants reject these books.

So which group is right? :)

Not necessarily, because much of what was left out of the official canon was left out for political reasons.

And you know this from a book written by a MAN who if fallible and who had a preset idea of what the council's motives were and of what pressures were on the council from outside parties.

Everything relies on faith. The only question is, in what do you have faith? Is the Holy Spirit prompting you, or is that small voice Satan? Do you have faith in God, or in your own intellect?

If I rely on my intellect and feelings only, as you do, I would probably agree with you. But, I don't trust myself enough to do that. After all, I am just a fallible human.

And you know this from a book written by a MAN who if fallible and who had a preset idea of what the council's motives were and of what pressures were on the council from outside parties.

Everything relies on faith. The only question is, in what do you have faith? Is the Holy Spirit prompting you, or is that small voice Satan? Do you have faith in God, or in your own intellect?

If I rely on my intellect and feelings only, as you do, I would probably agree with you. But, I don't trust myself enough to do that. After all, I am just a fallible human.

God understands that. Which is why He made it so easy to get into Heaven. :)

I am a Catholic and a Catholic I intend to stay

I am a Catholic and a Catholic I intend to stay
I left Catholicism in the dust lol

So which group is right? :)

Naturally, I agree with the Protestants. I wouldn't be one if I disagreed with them. :)

Excuse me while I go on a brief rant...

"I'm Presbyterian, but I disagree with predestination."

Then you're not Presbyterian!!!!!!! The definition of a Presbyterian is one who follows the Reformed/Calvinist tradition of Christianity and participates in a democratic church government. One of the basic beliefs of the REformed tradition is predestination! If you don't believe in predestination, you aren't REformed which means you can't be a Presbyterian!!!!!

Okay, I'm finished...

That rant applies to nearly all things.

God understands that. Which is why He made it so easy to get into Heaven. :)

How do you say one "gets" to heaven?

I believe God lets persons in; they don't achieve it. But anyway...

Naturally, I agree with the Protestants. I wouldn't be one if I disagreed with them. :)

Excuse me while I go on a brief rant...

"I'm Presbyterian, but I disagree with predestination."

Then you're not Presbyterian!!!!!!! The definition of a Presbyterian is one who follows the Reformed/Calvinist tradition of Christianity and participates in a democratic church government. One of the basic beliefs of the REformed tradition is predestination! If you don't believe in predestination, you aren't REformed which means you can't be a Presbyterian!!!!!

Okay, I'm finished...

That rant applies to nearly all things.

But doesn't God speak to the Catholics and Eastern Ortho...dox...(er)...ites?

Is it possible that only one group of christians is right? Or is it more likely that thedifferences are mere trivial details and it's the message that matters?

I'm a liberal Anglo-Catholic.

Oh, go on,

Make you mind up!

And you know this from a book written by a MAN who if fallible and who had a preset idea of what the council's motives were and of what pressures were on the council from outside parties.

No, I know this from a council of Christians (men and women) who have come to the conclusion that the early church was as easily corrupted as the current church, not a work of fiction.

Everything relies on faith. The only question is, in what do you have faith? Is the Holy Spirit prompting you, or is that small voice Satan? Do you have faith in God, or in your own intellect?

If I rely on my intellect and feelings only, as you do, I would probably agree with you. But, I don't trust myself enough to do that. After all, I am just a fallible human.

So you believe that humans other than Christ are infallible? Every single person who touched scripture must be infallible - or your faith crumbles.

It's not Satan's prompting which causes one to think. God created us, God gave us our brains, God gave us the ability to analyze. Many of the books which were excluded - even from the Apocrypha - mesh well with books in the canon. One was left out because its author was a woman. The mere fact that they seem to authenticate each other implies to me that some of the inspired works have been left out.

It's not threatening to do some research.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html

How do you say one "gets" to heaven?

I believe God lets persons in; they don't achieve it. But anyway...

To join the 'Pearly Gate Club', one must only believe Christ's message:

The message He gave us was that to live forever in God's Kingdom, we needed only to regret our sins, live good lives, love eachother unconditionally and to accept these as Christ's message from God.

As for those who don't believe in Christ? I don't think that you need to acknowledge the messenger to believe the message. I think we each hear that message within ourselves and decide whether or not to believe it.

But doesn't God speak to the Catholics and Eastern Ortho...dox...(er)...ites?

Is it possible that only one group of christians is right? Or is it more likely that thedifferences are mere trivial details and it's the message that matters?

Only one group of Christians is right, yes. The Protestants are saying the car is blue, the Rc's are saying it's red, and the EO's that it's white. Only one can be right. But in the big scheme of things, does it really matter what color a car is? Dependes on the situation. If your telling someone that Jesus is going to drive by in the first car of whatever color, it's matters a heck of a lot!

"I'm Presbyterian, but I disagree with predestination."

Then you're not Presbyterian!!!!!!! The definition of a Presbyterian is one who follows the Reformed/Calvinist tradition of Christianity and participates in a democratic church government. One of the basic beliefs of the REformed tradition is predestination! If you don't believe in predestination, you aren't REformed which means you can't be a Presbyterian!!!!!


Maybe this is because I'm from a very ecumenical tradition, but I disagree wholeheartedly with this. One does not need to ascribe to every single belief of a denomination to consider him/herself a member. If one did, there would be few Catholics, few Presbyterians, few Methodists, few Episcopalians, few Baptists, etc...

One must only believe that the sect with whom s/he identifies is the closest to being correct. (Do not give up the habit of meeting together...)

Only one group of Christians is right, yes. The Protestants are saying the car is blue, the Rc's are saying it's red, and the EO's that it's white. Only one can be right. But in the big scheme of things, does it really matter what color a car is? Dependes on the situation. If your telling someone that Jesus is going to drive by in the first car of whatever color, it's matters a heck of a lot!

So only people who believe exactly what you believe will be in Heaven? Doesn't that imply your own infallibility???

Only one group of Christians is right, yes. The Protestants are saying the car is blue, the Rc's are saying it's red, and the EO's that it's white. Only one can be right. But in the big scheme of things, does it really matter what color a car is? Dependes on the situation. If your telling someone that Jesus is going to drive by in the first car of whatever color, it's matters a heck of a lot!

Jesus, like Buddha, rides a Segway. :)

No, I know this from a council of Christians (men and women) who have come to the conclusion that the early church was as easily corrupted as the current church, not a work of fiction.

So you believe that humans other than Christ are infallible? Every single person who touched scripture must be infallible - or your faith crumbles.

It's not Satan's prompting which causes one to think. God created us, God gave us our brains, God gave us the ability to analyze. Many of the books which were excluded - even from the Apocrypha - mesh well with books in the canon. One was left out because its author was a woman. The mere fact that they seem to authenticate each other implies to me that some of the inspired works have been left out.

It's not threatening to do some research.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html

Why trust this council over the earlier one?

Christ called certain pesons directly. Those persons were infallible when speaking on spiritual matters after they were called. Just like the Prophets in the OT, God purified their mouths to speak only His truth.

The writings of these persons were acccepted as inspired. And the writings of those persons once removed from them if that writing was written during the time the two were together.

I don't deny that there may be truth in the Apocrypha or other books. But I do deny that we should make judgements about what ought to be believed from them more than we would any other mere human writing. I think there is truth in the Lord of the Rings, but I don't make judements by using it. I do the same with books not found in the Canon.

I'm not going to follow the link now, but I'm writing it down to invetigate in the future.

Well, I never really gave it too much thought from that angle, but I'll try.

For a beginning, I believe there was a man named Jesus Christ. Whether he was an aspect of God, God's son, an ordinary man or all three is rather irrelevant. What is relevant is that he died to give mankind a message. He then proved that death was not the end of life, but the beginning before he left for Parts Unknown. I'd like to believe he ascended to Heaven.

The message He gave us was that to live forever in God's Kingdom, we needed only to regret our sins, live good lives, love eachother unconditionally and to accept these as Christ's message from God.

However, as Christ himself pointed out, his disciples were men. With the flaws and ambitions of men. The scriptures were written by them. Then rewritten by other men. Then translated by still others who worked in the service of kings and other powerful men with their own agendas. Then retranslated again.

I believe that Christ's message was a simple one and became buried under two millennia of politics and wishful thinking. But that doesn't make His message any less clear. I also believe that the best place to find His message is in ourselves and not in the rantings of religious leaders with questionable motives.

So we should look to our own personal rantings rather than the rantings of others? Because our motives are pure? And our hearts are pure and free of sin?

That is why we have the Scriptures in the first place. Otherwise, everyone can claim that their own ideas are right, and each cult would have equal claim to Truth.

Yes, the Bible has been copied and recopied, translated and re-translated. But in general, the latest manuscripts agree with the earliest ones over 99% of the time, so we have a pretty good idea of what God said. Whether we understand it or not is another question.

It is not a matter of feeling one's way along. It is a matter of working at it.

2 Timothy 2:
15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

It would be like allowing everyone to decide for themselves how long a meter is, without the standard reference meter. The Bible is supposed to be the standard reference.:)

To join the 'Pearly Gate Club', one must only believe Christ's message:

As for those who don't believe in Christ? I don't think that you need to acknowledge the messenger to believe the message. I think we each hear that message within ourselves and decide whether or not to believe it.

I disagree. Call me a heathen Evangelical, but I believe one needs to accept Christ as his or her Lord and Savior.

I disagree. Call me a heathen Evangelical, but I believe one needs to accept Christ as his or her Lord and Savior.

Feel free. Your belief won't keep me out of heaven and if I'm right, yours won't keep you out either. As long as you accept the underlying message. :)

Christ called certain pesons directly. Those persons were infallible when speaking on spiritual matters after they were called. Just like the Prophets in the OT, God purified their mouths to speak only His truth.


I don't know of Jesus calling anyone other than His own apostles, during his earthly life...

Because truth will stand up to logic. If the arguments this council makes are logical, and still point to inspired Scripture, doesn't that strengthen other things they might say. Ultimately it is up to the Christian to wade through the information and collectively choose what gels with one's view of God...


(And for the record, I'm not sure if the Jesus Seminar has actually ever approached the Apocrypha as a matter of judgment. I was missing a few steps. They have certainly addressed other things which might be distressing to a fundamentalist, though.)

Maybe this is because I'm from a very ecumenical tradition, but I disagree wholeheartedly with this. One does not need to ascribe to every single belief of a denomination to consider him/herself a member. If one did, there would be few Catholics, few Presbyterians, few Methodists, few Episcopalians, few Baptists, etc...

One must only believe that the sect with whom s/he identifies is the closest to being correct. (Do not give up the habit of meeting together...)

Would you be upset about a Fundamentalist Muslim calling himself a proponent of democracy?

This is infinitely more important.

There is a difference between meeting together and refusing to call things by their right names. I'll meet with Pentacostals, does that mean I'm Pentacostal? No, I'm still Presbyterian even if I have (gasp!) taken communion from the hand of a Pentacostal minister!

So only people who believe exactly what you believe will be in Heaven? Doesn't that imply your own infallibility???

Did I say that? I said the situation determines its importance. If we're discussing how someone is saved, I believe they need to agree with Scripture to be saved. I agree with Scripture so they would agree with me also, though that's not what saves them.

If we're discussing the proper means of Baptizing, it's important but not so important as salvation. And you can use Scritpture in great amounts to support both arguments without ignoring verses.

So it's not my infallibility, it's the infallibility of Scripture that dtermines what is right. The only time I do not reference Scripture is when discussing the in/falliblilty of Scripture, because that's kind of pointless.

So we should look to our own personal rantings rather than the rantings of others? Because our motives are pure? And our hearts are pure and free of sin?

That is why we have the Scriptures in the first place. Otherwise, everyone can claim that their own ideas are right, and each cult would have equal claim to Truth.

Yes, the Bible has been copied and recopied, translated and re-translated. But in general, the latest manuscripts agree with the earliest ones over 99% of the time, so we have a pretty good idea of what God said. Whether we understand it or not is another question.

It is not a matter of feeling one's way along. It is a matter of working at it.

2 Timothy 2:
15Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

It would be like allowing everyone to decide for themselves how long a meter is, without the standard reference meter. The Bible is supposed to be the standard reference.:)

I think that if more people listened to what their heart told them God wants them to do, and not to what some other person tells them God wants them to do, there would be no cults. And certainly a lot less people wold have killed eachother in God's name over the centuries. I'm not saying that The Bible isn't a standard. What I'm saying is that considering the number of different bibles, the amount of material left out of them based on the decisions of powerful people long dead and the motivations of questionable religious leaders alive today, that the best thing we can do is read with an open mind, listen with an open mind and do what God commands us to from within.

Or to simplify things; If I have to trust somebody's judgement, it's going to be mine, not yours. :)

so i am just curious... i'm Jewish, you see... is it really going to matter in the end whether you were a baptist or a presbyterian or a catholic or an anglican?? because the impression i always got from my VERY CHRISTIAN european history teacher was that as long as you believe in jesus and are a decent person, you're good to go in the hereafter. and if nothing else, all these happy christian denominations believe in jesus whatever the other doctrinal differences, so oughtn't it all work it out ultimately??

Or to simplify things; If I have to trust somebody's judgement, it's going to be mine, not yours. :)

God alone is master of the conscience.

The way you end all your posts with a smiley is unsettling though I have no idea why. :confused:

so i am just curious... i'm Jewish, you see... is it really going to matter in the end whether you were a baptist or a presbyterian or a catholic or an anglican?? because the impression i always got from my VERY CHRISTIAN european history teacher was that as long as you believe in jesus and are a decent person, you're good to go in the hereafter. and if nothing else, all these happy christian denominations believe in jesus whatever the other doctrinal differences, so oughtn't it all work it out ultimately??

There is some debate among christians as to how much the smaller details in the Bible matter. :p

God alone is master of the conscience.

The way you end all your posts with a smiley is unsettling though I have no idea why. :confused:

It's my way. Typically, it reflects my emotional state, though sometimes I use a regular smilie: :) after I say something particularly irreverent and bizarre to creep people out.

I promise I am not using it to creep you out. At least, not on purpose. :)

so i am just curious... i'm Jewish, you see... is it really going to matter in the end whether you were a baptist or a presbyterian or a catholic or an anglican?? because the impression i always got from my VERY CHRISTIAN european history teacher was that as long as you believe in jesus and are a decent person, you're good to go in the hereafter. and if nothing else, all these happy christian denominations believe in jesus whatever the other doctrinal differences, so oughtn't it all work it out ultimately??

It will work out. "We will know Him then as He knows us now." How does God know us? Perfectly. We will know whether we were in error or not: which denomination served and worshipped God most faithfully. Though of course we won't gloat. :)

But, we should always strive to serve Him and worship Him as best we know how. And when different persons look at Scripture, they are bound to see at least one difference. Sometimes, it isn't so horrible a difference. For example, my father disagrees with my interpretation of the Scripture I quoted above. But there are some things that affect our theologies and actions more, like predestination. So the Church splits into churches and traditions, though they are still one Church, catholic and orthodox.

It's my way. Typically, it reflects my emotional state, though sometimes I use a regular smilie: :) after I say something particularly irreverent and bizarre to creep people out.

I promise I am not using it to creep you out. At least, not on purpose. :)

Well, you're either extremely happy (which is good) or a deranged psycho (which is bad). We had a discussion in school today about how certain mass-murdurers were able to be so kind almost overly kind. I guess that's why it's unsettling right now. Noramlly, it wouldn't bother me, but after that discussion...

I thought it was a central tenet in christianity that a human cannot redeem himself on his own, that salvation can only be obtained through the mercy of God. No matter how good the human is.
surely its god's business whom he decides to bestow his mercy on. if that happens to be a good person who is not a christian, thats god's decision, not ours.

Well, you're either extremely happy (which is good) or a deranged psycho (which is bad). We had a discussion in school today about how certain mass-murdurers were able to be so kind almost overly kind. I guess that's why it's unsettling right now. Noramlly, it wouldn't bother me, but after that discussion...

:)

:)

*barricades house*

surely its god's business whom he decides to bestow his mercy on. if that happens to be a good person who is not a christian, thats god's decision, not ours.

Well, if God bestowed His mercy on someone, that person would be bure to become a Christian, or so I beleive with my Reformed heritage.

I consider myself an evangelical. I used to be pretty worldly, since then I've changed. My days of wild parties and fast women are over....thanks to someone very dear to me who took the time to show me the way.

I try to share the message wherever I go...to share what I've been given. So I guess if that's your definition of evangelical, I'm one.

Who decided what was selected? Or what was the right stuff and wrong stuff? Did God select it? Or did the Roman Catholic Church?

Canon was decided at the Council of Nicea
For mor info check this website out, they do a pretty decent job of the history of the council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Well, if God bestowed His mercy on someone, that person would be bure to become a Christian, or so I beleive with my Reformed heritage.
if one is a christian, one should believe that proper christian behavior is the best way to get into heaven.

i dont consider myself on the level of god so i dont judge who gets into heaven and who doesnt. my concern is my own behavior not that of others.

i do find it ridiculous to suggest that jesus, who spent a good part of the bible ranting against those who put "the law" above everything would have come to earth to instate his OWN picayune rules that must be followed to the letter or be damned.


you seem to think that the bible IS god is some mysterious way. that god is limited by what is in the bible. the bible is for US its not for god. it tells US what to do it doesnt tell god what to do. if god wants to let every person who ever lived into heaven, that is his business. if he chooses to damn the lot of us, that is also his business. god is greater than the words of the bible.

Greater Acention']Canon was decided at the Council of Nicea
For mor info check this website out, they do a pretty decent job of the history of the council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Interesting stuff.

I thought it was a central tenet in christianity that a human cannot redeem himself on his own, that salvation can only be obtained through the mercy of God. No matter how good the human is.

This is very true especially in Protestantism, however Christianity and salvation through Jesus while listed as a way for salvation is not the ONLY way listed in the bible.

If this where the case no one would be allowed salvation prior to Christ. However salvation prior to Christ was seen through Judaism and following its tenants.

But even before Judaism existed there are mentions of salvation in the bible, such as Enoch. This means that even before Judaism there was a method of salvation, I believe by following a sort of natural law but I cannot be certain.

Now the question and debate is not whether or not there are other ways to salvation, as there clearly have been. The debate is whether or not these alternative means of salvation are still open to humanity after Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. Also if there are other ways of salvation are unknown.

So what many Christians would say is, yes there where other ways for salvation, however we don't know if those are still available. We know Christianity is, so this should be what you do for salvation.

Full Disclosure: I consider myself to be a strong Christian believer that loves to study theology and the beginnings of the Christian faith and traditions.

Why did you resurrect this thread?

lulz pun

Yeah sorry about that, totally didn't notice how old it was. I was just looking through my posts and noticed this one, then noticed how there was an unanswered question so I decided to answer it.

No harm was meant by it, and I wasn't looking at stirring up anything.

I don't mean this label that liberals throw on anyone who so much thinks the name God in their politics.

Are you so oblivious to irony that you honestly don't see the problem with complaining about being stereotyped while simultaneously stereotyping another group?

EDIT: Oops, didn't realise this was an old thread. :(

*flees*

Now, that is debateable...in much the same way the old "Tastes Great! vs. "Less Filling!" debate went.

Why did you resurrect this thread?

lulz punObviously the only tangible results, given the context. Nothing else was forthcoming.
Sacrifice had to be made.

Why did you resurrect this thread?

lulz pun

Wow, this is old. Before I was even founded, or whatever it is we do.

I don't really have anything to say, I just wanted to post on an old thread before it was locked.

I'm an evangelical Lutheran, ELCA to be precise.

Evangelicals, American at least, are sociopathic. Anyone who looks forward with the giddiness of a school girl to the end of the world and the mass slaughter that will ensue is not right in the head.

Faith without works is worthless. Works without faith is useless. I think I've made my point.

I’m an atheist, but I was brought up in the Church of Scotland; a Calvinist, Presbyterian church.

Although I don’t believe, a reformed (indeed, continually reforming) church makes more ‘sense’ to me.

Evangelicals, American at least, are sociopathic. Anyone who looks forward with the giddiness of a school girl to the end of the world and the mass slaughter that will ensue is not right in the head.

If you had read the OP, or any of the thread, for that matter, you would see that Evangelicals are not defined as that.

If you had read the OP, or any of the thread, for that matter, you would see that Evangelicals are not defined as that.

Thats how its defined here in the states, so how the OP defines them is a moot point.

Works without faith is useless.
How do you figure that? I have always been puzzled by this attitude. If I am shivering and someone gives me a coat, that is useful, no matter what that fellow does or doesn't believe.

Thats how its defined here in the states, so how the OP defines them is a moot point.
The internet is the US now?

Moreover, see here (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=evangelical*1+0&dict=A).

The internet is the US now?

:rolleyes:


If you'll notice my original comment, I specified that I was refering to American Evangelicals.

Evangelicals, American at least, are sociopathic. Anyone who looks forward with the giddiness of a school girl to the end of the world and the mass slaughter that will ensue is not right in the head.

Note bolded.

The internet is the US now?

Moreover, see here (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=evangelical*1+0&dict=A).

And a core factor in the Evangelical momvent is the literal interpertation of Revelations, and looking foward to that event with joy.


Thats sociopathic.

If you’ll notice my original comment, I specified that I was refering to American Evangelicals.
And if you’ll notice the Cambridge Dictionary of American English defines evangelicals as “(a member) of one of the Christian groups that believe biblical teaching and persuading other people to join them are extremely important”, plus your definition hardly fits.

How are those who believe the Apocalypse is upon us the only evangelical Christians. Incorrect usage of a term by some of the American population doesn’t mean that said usage is correct, just as incorrect usage of the term ‘liberal’ by some of the American population doesn’t mean that ‘liberal’ is defined as ‘anyone on the left political spectrum’.

Anyhoo, no need to roll your smiley eyes at me.

And a core factor in the Evangelical momvent is the literal interpertation of Revelations, and looking foward to that event with joy.
No, no it's not.

I grew up in an Evangelical church, so I'd know.

I'm a fundamentalist and radical follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

I declare war on the infidels populating this forum

*sends in suicide bomber*

To join the 'Pearly Gate Club', one must only believe Christ's message:



As for those who don't believe in Christ? I don't think that you need to acknowledge the messenger to believe the message. I think we each hear that message within ourselves and decide whether or not to believe it.

This is what I decided at a fairly early age. I'm an agnostic and a humanist. I try above all else to do no harm to any living creature, and to practice compassion and kindness. I believe people are mostly good. If there is a God, I don't think He would send me to hell for trying my best to be a good person in the absence of absolute faith; and if He would, then He's not a God I'd want to worship.

How do you figure that? I have always been puzzled by this attitude. If I am shivering and someone gives me a coat, that is useful, no matter what that fellow does or doesn't believe.

Not quite what it means. It means useful for getting into heaven. Also, I don't think those were the exact words, I was paraphrasing there.