Can we Christians agree on these statements?Ver#2

[biblecatholic]

I wanted to ask us these questions.

Can we all as Christians agree on these statements.


1)We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit


2)We believe in Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.


3)We believe Jesus died so we could have eternal life.


4)We believe the Scriptures are the word of God.


5)We believe we are saved by the grace of God


I know this is basic stuff and I'm sure in the details we might disagree but I just wanted to see on this basic information if we can come to a consensuses on these essentials without going into details.........I know that we all hold that the details are important(and they are to me ,big time) but I just wanted to see this post be a uniting in Christ

 

[handy]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

I certainly would accept anyone who believed in these 5 confessions to be a brother or sister in the Lord.

And conversely, I would question anyone who disagreed with any one of these confessions. This includes #4. I'm not saying that one has to fully understand how the Scriptures are inspired but I would question, and I use the word question as meaning that I would enter into dialog with, anyone who does not recognize that the Scriptures are God's word to us.

 

[GraceBwithU]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

I wanted to ask us these questions.

Can we all as Christians agree on these statements.


1)We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit


2)We believe in Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.


3)We believe Jesus died so we could have eternal life, He died for the sake of all(even though all will not make use of the salvific act)


4)We believe the Scriptures are the word of God.


5)We believe we are saved by the grace of God


I know this is basic stuff and I'm sure in the details we might disagree but I just wanted to see on this basic information if we can come to a consensuses on these essentials without going into details.........I know that we all hold that the details are important(and they are to me ,big time) but I just wanted to see this post be a uniting in Christ

God Bless you.
Of course, all these statements are true! It is good of you to bring up these very basic and common truths about all Christians. Maybe we should rejoice together about what we have in common rather than ridicule and argue over the sometimes petty differences.

 

[cyberjosh]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

I agree on all these. But unfortunately with #1 you'll have to clarify with some people around here, by asking what they believe about them. For example: some think Jesus was created, some think he was "a god", etc. Just a heads up.

 

[mutzrein]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

I wanted to ask us these questions.

Can we all as Christians agree on these statements.


1)We believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit


2)We believe in Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary.


3)We believe Jesus died so we could have eternal life, He died for the sake of all(even though all will not make use of the salvific act)


4)We believe the Scriptures are the word of God.


5)We believe we are saved by the grace of God


I know this is basic stuff and I'm sure in the details we might disagree but I just wanted to see on this basic information if we can come to a consensuses on these essentials without going into details.........I know that we all hold that the details are important(and they are to me ,big time) but I just wanted to see this post be a uniting in Christ

Using my definition of the words you use:

1 Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes he died that man can live eternally . . . but not for all.
4 Yes. If you are asking whether the bible (the one with 66 books) is inspired of God.
5 Yes

 

[darkwater]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

3 Yes he died that man can live eternally . . . but not for all.

To clarify, do you mean that God did not offer himself for everyone or not everyone will be saved in the end?

 

[darkwater]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Sorry, but Christians believe that the Bible Alone is the Word of God.
That disqualifies all Catholics.
Boo hoo.
Red Beetle

What does that have to do with this list, first of all.

Secondly, show me where the Bible supports your doctrine as something all Christians have to believe. This thread, a new thread, PM, doesn't matter how you do it.

 

[Imagican]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

And I as well most certainly agree with the statements offered. While there is 'more' to a 'perfect understanding', the basic principles outlined are definitely a 'beginning'.

And, as Mutz has offered I would go another step in that there ARE translations that are VERY different than others. That EACH teaches the basic Gospels is useful in testimony of the apostles, there can be MUCH that is 'hidden' through mistranslation.

So, while the Bible IS the inspired Word of God, one MUST take into consideration that it is NOTHING but a 'book' to those that are NOT led by The Spirit. For the god of this world IS able to trasform our understanding into that of HIS OWN. So, without the HOLY Spirit, much is LOST upon those that read The Word.

Christ DID die for ALL mankind. There will certainly only be a PORTION of mankind that will ACCEPT His offering.

MEC

 

[biblecatholic]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

And I as well most certainly agree with the statements offered. While there is 'more' to a 'perfect understanding', the basic principles outlined are definitely a 'beginning'.

I'm glad that we can have agreement on these basic principles


Blessings

 

[biblecatholic]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Using my definition of the words you use:

1 Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes he died that man can live eternally . . . but not for all.
4 Yes. If you are asking whether the bible (the one with 66 books) is inspired of God.
5 Yes

I'm glad we have some agreement.

3. i was kind of unclear on what you had said. Where you meaning that Jesus did not die for all sin?

as far as 4 goes I was just asking for a basic understanding that the Bible is the word of God. without details as I had stated. I know we disagree on the details(and they are very important). and this isn't a theological or technical tread....I was just trying to see a glimmer of the Body of Christ looking like it..even if it's just slightly

 

[Vic C.]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

biblecatholic,

what you have done here is what we've tried to do on several occasions, including in the RC subforum. We've tried to establish some sort of common ground based on the Site's Statement of Faith.

Unfortunately heads and ideas still clash on the finer points of the SoF and radicalism on any front will be opposed to any common ground established.

I thank you and commend you for your effort.

 

[mutzrein]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

3 Yes he died that man can live eternally . . . but not for all.

To clarify, do you mean that God did not offer himself for everyone or not everyone will be saved in the end?

Jesus was the Lamb of God that atoned for man and provided the way for him to pass from death to life in the same way that the passover lamb provided the means of protection from the angel of death.

Now the question is. Was the passover lamb slain for ALL? Or only those who were in the house that came under the covering of the blood?

 

[mutzrein]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Using my definition of the words you use:

1 Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes he died that man can live eternally . . . but not for all.
4 Yes. If you are asking whether the bible (the one with 66 books) is inspired of God.
5 Yes

I'm glad we have some agreement.

3. i was kind of unclear on what you had said. Where you meaning that Jesus did not die for all sin?

as far as 4 goes I was just asking for a basic understanding that the Bible is the word of God. without details as I had stated. I know we disagree on the details(and they are very important). and this isn't a theological or technical tread....I was just trying to see a glimmer of the Body of Christ looking like it..even if it's just slightly

From my perspective this has got nothing to do with the body of Christ. The body of Christ is comprised of those who are 'in Christ'. And you can only be 'in Christ' if you are born of the same Spirit that raised Him from the dead. And scripture tells us that being born of the Spirit is not based on human decision (the things we believe).

 

[darkwater]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Now the question is. Was the passover lamb slain for ALL? Or only those who were in the house that came under the covering of the blood?

What is the house? Is the house open to all, but only occupied by those who choose to enter? If that's how you see it, we agree.

I don't think it would be proper to say that God built a house and excluded certain people from the start.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Now the question is. Was the passover lamb slain for ALL? Or only those who were in the house that came under the covering of the blood?

A very good question, Mutzrein.

One answered by John himself...

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29

Regards

 

[mondar]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

biblecatholic,

what you have done here is what we've tried to do on several occasions, including in the RC subforum. We've tried to establish some sort of common ground based on the Site's Statement of Faith.

Unfortunately heads and ideas still clash on the finer points of the SoF and radicalism on any front will be opposed to any common ground established.

I thank you and commend you for your effort.

Vic,
Where is this "Statement of faith," and does the existence of this "statement of faith" assume my consent? Who has to agree to this statement of faith?

To all,
Also, I would disagree with the limitations of the 5 point doctrinal statement above. Of course I would see the limitations on the power of the atonement to save in point 3 of the statement. I believe that Christs sacrifice saved. It saved absolutely, and completely. Furthermore, I deny that the extent of the atonement extends to the whole world. IF the atonement extends to the whole world, then it certainly does not save completely. In fact it simply does not save at all. I understand the term "world" to have a variety of meanings in the scriptures. AT times it refers to an evil system, at times it refers to all kinds of people, at times it refers to the Roman Empire. In many of the references used to refer to the atonement, it refers not to every person in the world, but to all kinds of people in the world (Every nation, tribe, and tongue). A good example of who Christ died for every tribe, tongue... Rev 5:9 "And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation," This verse tells us how Christ atoned for all kinds of people, but not every man.

Further verses on the limited extent (but completed salvation) are as follows:
Heb 9:28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it;
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.

Again, there is no limit to the power of the atonement. When Christ died, he did not die hoping that maybe, possibly, someone might make use of his assistance in salvation... No! Christ saved completely, and absolutely. There is no limit to the power of the atonement to save. He did not die hoping that the remote possibility of some unbeliever receiving some assistance. Christ chose some, and saved those whom the Father gave him.

 

[Drew]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

On the matter of the elect:

I hope that we all agree that it is desireable to, if at all possible, disentangle ourselves from various religious traditions and examine the scriptures afresh, seeking to let them (and not our traditions) speak to us. It is in that spirit that I raise the possibility that there may be a different way to think of the "elect" - a way which departs from the most common interpretation. Obviously, any proposal for what the term "elect" means must stand up to the Scriptures. But, and this key, it is important to make sure that we are not, unintentionally perhaps, comparing any new proposal against "traditional" interpretations instead of the text itself.

I suggest that the following conceptualization of the "elect" may, repeat may, be Scripturally defensible: The "elect" refers to a category of persons that has been pre-destined or "elected" to exist, yet the actual specific people who end up in that category are not "pre-destined". On this view, the term "the elect" refers to a category of persons, destined for ultimate justification, with specific "pre-determined" membership criteria. But the actual members are not pre-determined; they "enter" elect category as the result of a "free will" decision to accept the gift of grace.

This conceptualization of the "elect" preserves the critical notion of God's fore-ordainment, without which one would indeed distort the concept of "election" beyond recognition. It is for this reason that I think the view that "the elect are simply those who accept grace" is not a proper characterization of what it means to be in the elect. How, though, does God "pre-destine" or "elect" without "naming names?" How can it legtimately be said that God is pre-destining an "elect" if He does not pre-destine actual people into that group?

Well, for one thing, its seems intutitively clear to me that if God decides to pre-destine the existence of a caterory of persons who meet certain criteria (in this case, simply faith in Jesus), He is very much in the business of "fore-ordainment" - He is carving out a path to justification in His universe and fully pre-determining the "roadmap" that goes along with it - this is indeed all fore-ordained / pre-determined. I hope to fill this idea out later, but for the present, I do think one doesn't need to have God "naming names" in order to legitimately say that he is creating an "elect".

If someone builds a prestigious university by hiring the best professors, developing a great curriculum, and setting demanding admission standards, that person, I would suggest, is in a very real sense "electing" an intellectual elite into existence by providing society with access to this university. And this is done without pre-determining who will end up going there.

But I think an even stronger argument in support of my view is based on how Paul uses the word "elect" in Romans 11:

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever."

Paul is contrasting the "elect" with national Israel. And by context (earlier stuff in Romans), Paul considers the "elect" to be consituted by both Jews and Gentiles. He describes the hardening of Israel and how they failed to obtain what the "elect" did.

Were all individuals in national Israel hardened so that they did not attain what the elect did? Of course not. Paul himself is both a Jew and a member of the "elect". This is relevant precisely because Paul cannot be talking Israel construed as a set of specific individuals being hardened because that would imply that he himself was hardened to loss, and he obviously was not. He must be talking about Israel at the "group" or "nation" level, not at the "Israel equals these 1, 111, 232 people" level.

I think this legitimates the argument that he conceives of the elect in a similar "non-individual-specific level". More later, perhaps.

 

[Vic C.]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Mondar,

the governing body of this site ratified the SoF. We do expect each and every member to become acquainted with it (and the ToS). We don't expect each and every member outside of that body to adhere to it; we will use it as a yardstick of sorts to measure extremely unorthodox views though.

Mondar, you need not turn this into a predestiny/election/limited atonement debate. Man, we have enough of those threads we can bump up. But since it was brought up, let me be the last to comment.

My view is a variation of what Drew stated above. I believe in a group of elect, predestined individuals, who are given the "responsibility" to help bring more into the flock. I could never agree to such a limited atonement as you outlined above. I think it does great injustice to the work my Master did on the Cross for His creation; mankind.... and He asks for little more that one's faith.

There is no Biblical wisdom to the notion that God says, I'm God and I can chose to save whoever I want to save and to Hell with the rest. :o There is a difference between being led into the flock and being bred specifically for the flock. We're not clones or drones, people.

Ok, carry on with the OP.

 

[Imagican]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Wow,

I thought that it was PERFECTLY clear in scripture that Christ DID die for ALL mankind. That there will be those that refuse to 'accept' the gift offered is without doubt. But that it IS for ALL to benefit is WHAT the Word states.

I didn't see anything in the OP that offered ANYTHING other than THIS.

And Modar, I think you misread the OP. For it did NOT state that ALL men WOULD recieve what has been offered. ONLY that it has been offered to ALL.

And 'predestined' does NOT mean that there is NO CHOICE. All this means is that God is AWARE of the choices that WILL BE MADE. He does NOT make the choice FOR US. Just as Jonah attempted to 'disregard' that which he was 'sent to do', so too are we able to refuse to accept that which has been offered.

There ARE no 'special people' that are BORN to be 'saved'. That God was able to discern the DECISIONS that would be made does NOT limit our ability to 'choose'.

So, DID Christ die for ALL men or not? If NOT, then The Word is NOT to be accepted as truth. For The Word distinctly offers that Christ died for ALL SIN. Not JUST the sin of a 'few', but ALL SIN. Now, if one CHOOSES NOT to accept His offering, of course they will most likely be deniedthe 'gift'.

It's little different than the government offering a 'tax credit'. The ONLY way that you can RECEIVE it is to ASK for it. That there WILL be those that ignore the offering does NOT invalidate the offer in the LEAST, (and don't start trying to slam my example. I have in NO way attempted to indicate that ALL that is involved is the SAME as a 'tax credit'. Just offering that it is offered but NOT mandated that one accept the offer. There is CERTAINLY more to salvation than 'asking for it'. For the asking is JUST the beginning).

MEC

 

[Vic C.]

Re: Can we Christians agree on these statements?

Oy!

OK MEC, I'm giving you the last word, but... you all can start yet another spinoff thread on the specific points of TULIP if you desire, but we're doing a disservice to the OP. Hey, I'm as guilty as the next here. :

This is what happens every time we try do discuss points concerning any Statement of Faith we can agree upon. We always seem to go off in a tangent. :-?