| Author |
Message |
Asurprise
Registered user
Username: Asurprise
Post Number: 1944
Registered: 7-2007
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 8:45 pm: |     |
Jim; the author of confusion is the devil and the devil is the father of lies. God is not the author of confusion. (see 1st Corinthians 14:33) God is the author of Truth and the truth is that the gospel is simple!
Please read only God's word and nothing from the cults. God is the Author of His word, not Paul. I'm not trying to sting or criticize you, Jim. I'm concerned about you. Are you reading stuff from the cults, such as SDAs, because you're afraid that it's just too good to be true for salvation to be a free gift? When we were Adventists, we followed various well worn groves or routines. We had our routine down pat and we figured at as long as we followed our routine, our groove, we'd finally end up being saved. I heard a pastor say that we humans are born legalists. We feel we have to do something. It's kinda like falling off a log or perhaps a cliff to trust someone else - the Lord - to have done everything. Fall into His arms Jim. Trust that He HAS done everything and accept Him as your Lord and Savior!
Thank-you Ric for your words. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 12684
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 10:38 pm: | |
Jim, the times I have had the worst trouble making sense of "what is true" are the times I have refused to trust God and surrender to Him everything I think I know. I had to ask Him to help me read the Bible without "Adventist eyes". I had to be that specific...not just "please show me the truth", but "Please help me to read without Adventist understanding".
Have you asked God to remove the Adventist understandings (and Catholic, since you were raised Catholic) and to teach you what the words of His Scripture actually mean? He is the only One who can teach you what it means, but you really do have to give up your right to "rationalize". You have to be willing to learn and absorb what Scripture says. You have to be willing to let go of Adventism and everything it was. You have to be willing to let go of everything that "makes sense" and invite the Lord Jesus to be your only Truth.
Colleen |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 774
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2011 - 11:48 pm: | |
Ric, I think you are on too something. There are topics that come up often that, as a group, we seem to do fairly well with. Sola Scriptura is an example.
There are other topics that are such snake pits that I just don't want to wade in. I don't have the time, and I'm too darn tired of the anger engendered by threads such as women pastors; use of the church fathers in the study of a topic from scripture; and whether Baptism is something that saves or not.
My opinion is that it would be a good idea on the really hot button issues to post either a 'sticky' or a 'FAQ' that would lay out the different positions in orthodox (little 0) Christianity and leave it at that.
By no means did I want to discourage the newbies to the forum from posting. There's a lot of info on here from 12 (!!!) years of writing. It's often hard to wade through it to find what's needed.
Maybe a better search engine?
Bill |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1081
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 4:34 am: | |
Bill,
Thanks for the reply. You have some good suggestions. I don't think the criteria is how well we get along during the discussion, but that information might tell us something.
Women pastors is a great example. People are likely curious why conservative churches are so consistently opposed to it. But it is not a core doctrine or an issue that distinguishes orthodox from heretical. But I don't know that Formers have that much baggage tied to this issue.
Let me contrast that with discussions about Hell. I'm not convinced that this is a core doctrine. And while I wouldn't say that it is a pillar of orthodoxy, I do have to note that the groups who reject the traditional view are all cultic. This is so strongly ingrained in the SDA mindset and so intertwined with other SDA heresies that despite the strong exchanges between posters, it is an important topic to keep re-visiting. |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 776
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 7:39 am: | |
Well, Ric, here again reasonable minds differ! I do find the issue of women pastors an issue that does (almost always) distinguish between orthodox and heretical. I can't think of any church with women pastors that also holds to the doctrine of verbal, inerrent and plenary inspiration. And, usually there are also very unorthodox practices accompanying such as gay members and clergy; or in the case of the Pentecostals all sorts of heresies involving the Trinity.
As for hell, I would have to say that this is a core doctrine. As you've pointed out, groups who reject the traditional viewpoint are all cultic. When you have that sort of correlation, I can't think of anything to call it but a 'core' doctrine. Our Lord had a lot to say about hell and avoiding it when He was here on earth. If He thought it that important, I would think his followers would as well.
Something more along the lines of non-essential (for me) would be mode of baptism. The LCMS we belong too, I think has it right with saying that what makes Baptism is BOTH the water and the word together--not the method. Immerse 'em, dip 'em or sprinkle them, take your pick. Baptize them as babies or wait until they are adults, just baptize them! I guess you could say this is in the area of 'praxis', rather than doctrine.
The reality is that everyone's list differs! |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 12685
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 7:52 am: | |
It seems to me that as we commit to read Scripture as the inerrant word of God and submit our minds to it and ourselves to the Lord Jesus, a great many of these issues resolve. It doesn't happen quickly, in many cases, but these issues become more and more clear.
There will always be disagreements, and these don't distinguish between heretics and believers. However, when we commit to knowing God's word and will and are willing to let go of our biases and submit to the Lord Jesus (instead of finding a system of belief and letting the system interpret for us), these issues do resolve.
The more I see how utterly sovereign, loving, and infinite God is, the more these issues and their key passages in Scripture make sense and fit together. And for sure, we don't all see them in the same ways or from the same "places" at any given time.
The disagreements that most disturb me are those that ignore certain passages and words for the sake of our comfort or preference. We have to take every word of Scripture as true. If we can't reconcile certain things, we have to hold them loosely because from God's perspective (outside of time) they are not in conflict.
Colleen |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1082
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 7:58 am: | |
LoneViking,
I guess I was trying to look at "core" as it related to understanding the Gospel accurately and fully. From that standpoint, women pastors is a secondary issue. I agree that women pastors in a church are consistently accompanied by other, more serious, errors. I tend to view this question as a symptom issue. The core doctrinal issue is sola Scriptura. And I do believe that if you cannot accept the inerrancy and completeness of Scripture along with the total dependence on Scripture for doctrine and practice, then you will not accurately understand the Gospel. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1083
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 8:03 am: | |
A related question that I wanted to pose was the benefit of discussing topics, not just reading about them. I find that I learn more when I am participating in the discussion. If that is commonly true, then it says something about the benefits of the same topics being discussed again and again. What do others think? |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 778
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 8:03 am: | |
-------------------------------------
And for sure, we don't all see them in the same ways or from the same "places" at any given time.
-----------------------------------------
This is really a key point for a forum like this where individuals are transitioning from a cult to orthodoxy. It's a journey, and there's a lot of baggage to be shed and new truths to learn.
--------------------------------------
If we can't reconcile certain things, we have to hold them loosely because from God's perspective (outside of time) they are not in conflict.
------------------------------------------
One example this brings to mind is the oft heated debate over election and free will. The truth is that BOTH are in operation at the same time. That's why I stay out of the Calvinist/Arminian debates! There are a lot of paradoxes in Scripture that don't make sense to the human mind. Too often, one end or the other of a paradox winds up being staked out and vigorously defended as being the 'truth'. The 'truth' is actually found mid-field. |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 779
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 8:11 am: | |
Benefits, Ric? Hmmm, like being told I'm not saved because of my Lutheran theology? You and Leigh Ann have had the same charge (and others) leveled against you for your Lutheran viewpoints. This is what bothers me about so many of these contested discussions. So often, it gets personal, mean spirited and even vindictive. That's why I suggested that on some of these hot topics, it might be best to have a thread that simply lays out the positions that can be found in orthodox Christianity and let the reader decide for themselves. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1084
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 8:36 am: | |
It is never pleasant when someone takes personal shots at you, particularly for your beliefs. On the other hand, there were people on the same threads asking interesting questions that made me put into clear words why I believe what I do on some topics.
In order to have the benefits of a free discussion, you have to accept that a few of the folks participating may be mean spirited and vindictive from time to time. I'm just frustrated that I let those few people get under my skin from time to time. |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 780
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 8:54 am: | |
-----------------------------------------
I'm just frustrated that I let those few people get under my skin from time to time.
--------------------------------------------
You're not alone there! From my perspective, our Lutheran theology and practice are so very different from mainstream Evangelicalism that we tend to be easily misunderstood. For me, it's more comfortable to hang out on a Catholic forum where the differences aren't so sharp, and the replies not quite so cutting.
But, I do enjoy dropping in here from time to time, keeping track of what's going on and I do get satisfaction at seeing a steady stream of new folks learning new things on the forum. |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 9:07 am: | |
For the record. I do believe in Christ as my redeemer. Salvation being a free gift. Not of works.
When I say some things are confusing, it is not because I am holding onto a stubborn belief or my rationale. It is because the scriptures attributed in support of a pro con position are either in conflict, misapplied and subject to validity or interpretation.
We seem to have this rubber stamp collection that is used as a dismissive tactic of censure.
Ka Chunk "Heresy", Ka Chunk "Cult"
I understand people are trying to express a attitude and overall approach to trusting in Christ. I get that.
But to simply say , fall, let go, whatever, give up thinking, don't try to figure it out, that means in essence, whatever the majority says is truth, go with that.
I would far rather accept that some things cannot be answered conclusively from the Bible that to be forced fed what is not clear.
Asurprise, I know that you are not trying to sting me. Forgive my frustration.
Jim |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1086
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 9:32 am: | |
Jim,
Believe me that I would be the last person to suggest that you just accept what people tell you without examination.
But you don't need to answer every question at once. Resting doesn't mean passively accepting what others teach, it means, at least as I was using it, to quit sweating all the tiny details and spend the time enjoying the One that you know. The details take years to fall into place, and even longer when you are trying to force them together. Instead of reading to find the things you don't have answers for, read to learn more about how salvation is by grace through faith and not by works. When you come across the passages that you don't understand right now, just set them aside for later. Don't let them turn into the newest puzzle to solve distracting you from the Truth. Over time there will be less and less that you are setting aside for later, but don't worry about a schedule or a percent. Just rest in Christ and His completed work.
There is no substitute for His Word.
Try this approach to resting in Him. Post and discuss the wonderful things you have read that reinforce or build on these basics. Stear clear of the threads that are hashing out controversial subjects for a while. |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1087
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 9:46 am: | |
My experience on Catholic boards isn't much different than here. I'm not convinced that Lutheranism has more in common with Catholicism than Evangelicalism. I think it is a more confused web than that.
Lutherans are more like RCs in some areas:
Worship service
Sacramental view of Baptism and Lord's Supper
Evangelicals and RCs share these areas:
Political activity
Free will instead of election
Emphasis on our efforts in sanctification
Lutherans and Evangelicals share many areas:
Sola Scriptura
Grace is the gift of salvation, not the power to achieve it
Grace alone/ faith alone |
Jonvil
Registered user
Username: Jonvil
Post Number: 589
Registered: 4-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 9:59 am: | |
"A related question that I wanted to pose was the benefit of discussing topics, not just reading about them. I find that I learn more when I am participating in the discussion. If that is commonly true, then it says something about the benefits of the same topics being discussed again and again. What do others think?" Rick
I appreciate the discussions, especially when they raise questions that I am not prepared to answer. I may not participate but I am galvanized to further study. Due to the fact that I basically started at ground zero theologically, the majority of my study initially stemmed from topics that others were discussing (here and other forums-the good, the bad and the ugly). Topics were a starting point that led me to other topics - and on and on…
Now, after five years…I'm still as dumb as a brick. The more I study the more apparent my ignorance.
John |
Jim02
Registered user
Username: Jim02
Post Number: 1188
Registered: 5-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 4:17 pm: | |
Thank You Ric.
Jim |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1797
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 7:29 pm: | |
Based on Loneviking post 780 and Rick_b post 1087 it seems to me that it does not matter what group one belongs to. They all have things in common and things not in common. Maybe the best thing is just find a group where one feels comfortable and joint that one since there will be similarities and differences anyways. What is "core" for one is not for the other. That happens among groups and withing groups. So maybe as long as you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ it does not matter what other beliefs are consider "core" for this or that group or person. If Lutherans are closer to evangelicals, and Lutheran are closer to Catholics, then it would be the same to be either Lutheran, evangelical, or Catholic. Why not SDA then?
Hec |
Skeeter
Registered user
Username: Skeeter
Post Number: 1458
Registered: 12-2007
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 7:38 pm: | |
I am getting a headache/heartache  |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1089
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 8:14 pm: | |
Hec,
I think you have greatly twisted what both I and LoneViking were saying. No church stands as an island without similarities to, and influences by other churches. Some of these similarities are benign, others are more dangerous. Lutheran pastors wear collars and funny robes so they look like RC priests. That doesn't matter much from a theological perspective. SDAs and RCs share the identical view of how we are saved, that matters a great deal. |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 782
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2011 - 9:43 pm: | |
Hec,
To add to what Ric just wrote, he and I were discussing and comparing what makes a belief 'core'. Is it the belief itself? Or is it the effect of the belief? An example that was given was women pastors.
On its face, the issue of women pastors might NOT be a core doctrine, but the EFFECT of the reasoning behind allowing them suggests otherwise. We aren't saying the differences don't matter; we aren't saying 'do what feels good'.
As for churches and similarities, some study in church history might help you there. The early church fathers, in belief and practice were pretty close to Lutheran---and those beliefs were part of the RCC for many years.
But, times change and the RCC changed its' doctrine. Celebate priests; the split with the Eastern church; purgatory and indulgences coming in. Luther wanted to reform, not leave and wreck the RCC.
Since then, churches have strayed farther and farther, in both doctrine and practice from the early church. Some,like the SDAs, Mormons and JW's have gone so far off base that as a system, they simply aren't Christian anymore.
So, Hec, yes there is a spectrum of beliefs and practices. But to say that this somehow doesn't matter is simply not true.
Does that help? |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1092
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2011 - 5:44 am: | |
Hec,
Additionally, the distinctions that LoneViking and I were making wasn't anything is acceptable theology. It was a question of which beliefs are critical to being Christian and which are still true, but not as critical. Not to put words in LoneVikings mouth, but I think we both agree that these few are critical:
Trinity
Incarnation and Virgin Birth
Inerrancy of Scripture
Sola Scriptura
Salvation by grace along through faith alone
Substitutionary atonement
Resurrection to everlasting life
We both agree that the following are true doctrines, but not on whether they are essential to being a Christian:
Eternal punishment in Hell for non-believers
There is no Biblical basis for ordaining women as pastors
And I think we both agreed that the following doctrines should not divide Christians, because there is room Biblically for reasonable people to reach different conclusions based on Scripture:
Election vs Free Will
Proper mode of baptism
End time events, various millennial viewpoints
Perhaps we weren't clear enough about this in our initial discussion. What LoneViking and I were talking about with different people having their own lists of core doctrines was which doctrines fell into each group, not everyone has their own doctrines and that is OK, so long as it isn't SDA. |
Loneviking
Registered user
Username: Loneviking
Post Number: 784
Registered: 7-2000
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2011 - 7:59 am: | |
.....or Mormon, JW's, Oneness Pentecostal or the feel good social gospel of the likes of Osteen and the TBN crowd.
Ric explained things pretty well, I think, and the way he organized the list of beliefs would be very helpful for those looking for a new church home. |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1799
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2011 - 8:41 am: | |
Yes, Ric explains things pretty well. He should be a teacher. As a matter of fact when he started posting after I became a member of the forum (what he calls coming back or something like that,) I Was very happy. I said to myself, "Good, another Bskillet." It happens that BSkillet has the gift of explaining things in a way that is easily understanding. But I don't remember him ever attacking the person,just the argument. Then when Rick became somewhat contentious, I got very disappointed. I'm so happy that Rick is understanding more the purpose and tenor of this forum, because we need his explanations.
I also wish that Bskillet would come back. I miss him terribly.
Hec |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 1093
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2011 - 6:58 pm: | |
quote: Then when Rick became somewhat contentious, I got very disappointed. I'm so happy that Rick is understanding more the purpose and tenor of this forum, because we need his explanations
Hec, I challenge you to find a single instance where I attacked the character of a person on this board. You might not like what I had to say about someone's beliefs and teachings, but that is not the same thing as a character attack. |
|
