Essential Doctrines

[Who Says]

Webster's Dictionary defines "doctrine" this way: "something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine"

IMO, you are confusing the teachings of churches (men) with the teachings of Jesus or the apostles (Holy Spirit).

IMO, to deny teachings of the apostles is to deny what the Holy Spirit Inspired them to write and teach us. I believe if someone rejects any of the core doctrine expressed in the Nicene Creed, he is re-inventing a god to suit his own personal preference. Pick any of the doctrines in this creed. If you deny any of them, I believe the result is a lesser god. The first commandment speaks to this in not having any other gods. There is One God. IMO, essential doctrines point toward the core understanding of Who He is and what He has Done.

We are going to have to disagree on that.

I see what you say the Holy Spirit teaches as not at all what the Holy Spirit teaches.

To be blunt honest I believe what you think the Holy Spirt taught is your imagination and that it turns God into a mystery aloof from man.

 

[Who Says]

Thanks for your reply...but I'm a bit fuzzy here.



Are you speaking of things solely within the Christian faith, or is this more universal in nature?

Very true...

My answer would be: Truth.

I'd say we've got to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater...there is a great misconception among many Christians as to what the various ecumenical councils and early polemicists actually did...especially during the ante-Nicence period, and up to the council of Chalcedon.

Once again we come full circle: True, honest, just, pure, etc.

Throwing out the baby with the bath water? The definition of that is Trinity.

And the game play of universal or not universal is rediculous. God says what is good for all.

 

[Alabaster]

Webster's Dictionary defines "doctrine" this way: "something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine"

IMO, you are confusing the teachings of churches (men) with the teachings of Jesus or the apostles (Holy Spirit).

IMO, to deny teachings of the apostles is to deny what the Holy Spirit Inspired them to write and teach us. I believe if someone rejects any of the core doctrine expressed in the Nicene Creed, he is re-inventing a god to suit his own personal preference. Pick any of the doctrines in this creed. If you deny any of them, I believe the result is a lesser god. The first commandment speaks to this in not having any other gods. There is One God. IMO, essential doctrines point toward the core understanding of Who He is and what He has Done.

 

[mcgyver]

Throwing out the baby with the bath water? The definition of that is Trinity.

And the game play of universal or not universal is rediculous. God says what is good for all.

Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been with my question...no game play, I assure you.

Many religious systems teach the concepts of peace, love etc.

However, IMO this does not make them, or even their concepts equal to Christianity.

Christianity is not an all-inclusive "religion", but is very much an exclusive "religion" in that Jesus said in John 14:6: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me".

Ghandi was certainly a man of peace who proclaimed a way of peace...yet if he failed to embrace the savior then he also died in his sins.

What I was asking then...to put it another way...Do you then feel that all paths lead to the same goal as long as they lead to peace and love?

 

[Who Says]

Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been with my question...no game play, I assure you.

Many religious systems teach the concepts of peace, love etc.

However, IMO this does not make them, or even their concepts equal to Christianity.

Christianity is not an all-inclusive "religion", but is very much an exclusive "religion" in that Jesus said in John 14:6: Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me".

Ghandi was certainly a man of peace who proclaimed a way of peace...yet if he failed to embrace the savior then he also died in his sins.

What I was asking then...to put it another way...Do you then feel that all paths lead to the same goal as long as they lead to peace and love?

No sir, I don't just believe, Iknow Jesus is the only way to God and fully understand why.

But the Trinity doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with it but to confuse that matter.

 

[mcgyver]

No sir, I don't just believe, Iknow Jesus is the only way to God and fully understand why.

But the Trinity doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with it but to confuse that matter.

Thanks...and in order to keep the thread from being closed...I'll not debate the doctrine of the Trinity.

So would it be fair to say that an essential doctrine is to place one's faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation?

 

[Who Says]

Thanks...and in order to keep the thread from being closed...I'll not debate the doctrine of the Trinity.

So would it be fair to say that an essential doctrine is to place one's faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone for salvation?

that is what the father has said we are to do. That is in fact what the Father began doing from the beginning of time.

Life is salvation. That has not changed.

And life (all life, whether in heaven or upon earth) has always been by and through the Son by the Father's good pleasure in the Son.

 

[Sparkey]

"Essential Doctrine" can also be defined as the Milk of the Word (to my way of thinking). The bible itself lists several elements of essential doctrine. The doctrine of repentance from dead works springs to mind. Batisms (interesting that the word used is plural, right?) and other doctrine or principles of first things is my reference from what Paul wrote to the Hebrews.

Can we examine these beliefs as a starting point, perhaps?
"Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits." - Hebrews 6:1-3 NKJV

My suggestion is that our discussion of "the Essential Doctrines" be purposefully limited to things we can readily agree on, the milk of the word type things -- and that we can somehow find our way to quickly list a half dozen or so such beliefs.

I'll start. This is just off the top of my head and not intended to be exhaustive but 1) God is good, He rewards those who earnestly seek Him. 2) Repentance from sin is required, baptism in water shows our desire to be holy because He is holy, it is the appeal of our inner man to God for a clear conscience before Him together with the fact that God does not despise a broken and contrite heart... 3) We are free from the stringent requirements of the law that was given to the Israelites by Moses because the just and good requirements of law (sacrificial ceremony and etc.) written in stone and delivered from the mountain --> has been fully satisfied by our Christ Jesus. 4) We are not relieved from our need to wholeheartedly worship God in Spirit and Truth as revealed by our godly acts in an ungoldly word....

Milk. Basic nutrition. Essential Doctrine. Yes?

 

[mcgyver]

Here's a follow up to "Christ alone for salvation"...open to all posters (not "aimed" at you per se Who Says)

What essential doctrine would/should be used to determine whether we are placing our faith in the true Christ?

The scripture tells us that there are many deceivers, antichrists, false messiahs who have already gone out into the world...wolves coming in the guise of sheep.

"Antichrist" BTW doesn't mean "against Christ" (that's English), it means "Instead of Christ"....

So what is there that is so different about Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, that we can be sure that our faith is in the right place?

 

[Who Says]

Here's a follow up to "Christ alone for salvation"...open to all posters (not "aimed" at you per se Who Says)

What essential doctrine would/should be used to determine whether we are placing our faith in the true Christ?

The scripture tells us that there are many deceivers, antichrists, false messiahs who have already gone out into the world...wolves coming in the guise of sheep.

"Antichrist" BTW doesn't mean "against Christ" (that's English), it means "Instead of Christ"....

So what is there that is so different about Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, that we can be sure that our faith is in the right place?

Certainly not that he was God else he could not have fulfilled the Old Covenant on our behalf.

What was different was that he proved that apart from sin being in a man, a man could fulfill God's Law.

The Law had already proved men of sin could not.

 

[Sparkey]

Here's a follow up to "Christ alone for salvation"...open to all posters (not "aimed" at you per se Who Says)

What essential doctrine would/should be used to determine whether we are placing our faith in the true Christ?

The scripture tells us that there are many deceivers, antichrists, false messiahs who have already gone out into the world...wolves coming in the guise of sheep.

"Antichrist" BTW doesn't mean "against Christ" (that's English), it means "Instead of Christ"....

So what is there that is so different about Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, that we can be sure that our faith is in the right place?

Good question and spot-on for today. Much of what is contained in the prophecy that I see in the "little letters," the General Epistles has to do with a very specific doctrine: That Jesus came in the flesh. Jesus was tempted, like as we. He called himself "Son of Man".

There are many scriptures we could refer to for this understanding but I like what John, the Beloved said:
1 John 4:
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God;
because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Once again I thank you for your reply...but I have a question: In English "anti" means against, but in the Koine Greek it means either "Instead [of]" or "Opposite [of]" ("Instead" being the far more common meaning). Therefore if we accept that antichrist means "Instead of Christ" or "Opposite of Christ", would that change your interpretation?

That Koine Greek does indeed mean what you said it does, but is using the Greek form of "anti" correct in light of the context which seems to imply that those termed (antichristos) were not trying to replace Jesus, but rather denied that he was who he claimed to be (saying the christ had not come in the flesh). So the context of 1 John 2 defines for us what the term means.
1 John 2:22 - And who’s a liar? It is those who deny that Jesus is the Anointed One. This is the Antichrist He who denies both the Father and the Son!

 

[mcgyver]

Once again, thanks for your reply

Certainly not that he was God else he could not have fulfilled the Old Covenant on our behalf.

What was different was that he proved that apart from sin being in a man, a man could fulfill God's Law.

The Law had already proved men of sin could not.

Here's a question: We know that Jesus said that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them, correct?

Now as a man, in accordance with the law of the kinsman redeemer; as a Jew of the tribe of Judah and the House of David...how could he become the kinsman redeemer of both Jew and Gentile alike?

According to the law, the KR had to be a near kinsman...so at best Jesus as a man (according to the law) could redeem only those of the tribe of Judah and lineage of David.

How would you explain that?

(Oh btw...The sinlessness of Christ is most certainly an essential doctrine...thanks.)

 

[mcgyver]

Good question and spot-on for today. Much of what is contained in the prophecy that I see in the "little letters," the General Epistles has to do with a very specific doctrine: That Jesus came in the flesh. Jesus was tempted, like as we. He called himself "Son of Man".

There are many scriptures we could refer to for this understanding but I like what John, the Beloved said:
1 John 4:
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God;
because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 By this you know the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.

Thanks so much. What is meant by "come in the flesh"?

 

[mcgyver]

That Koine Greek does indeed mean what you said it does, but is using the Greek form of "anti" correct in light of the context which seems to imply that those termed (antichristos) were not trying to replace Jesus, but rather denied that he was who he claimed to be (saying the christ had not come in the flesh). So the context of 1 John 2 defines for us what the term means.
1 John 2:22 - And who’s a liar? It is those who deny that Jesus is the Anointed One. This is the Antichrist He who denies both the Father and the Son!

Let me ask...how does the passage in 1 John 4 et.al. tie into John's gospel, chapter 1 verses 1 and 14?

More specifically verse 14 where the Apostle writes: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. After declaring that the word was with God, and the word was God?

 

[Who Says]

Once again, thanks for your reply



Here's a question: We know that Jesus said that He came not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfill them, correct?

Now as a man, in accordance with the law of the kinsman redeemer; as a Jew of the tribe of Judah and the House of David...how could he become the kinsman redeemer of both Jew and Gentile alike?

According to the law, the KR had to be a near kinsman...so at best Jesus as a man (according to the law) could redeem only those of the tribe of Judah and lineage of David.

How would you explain that?

(Oh btw...The sinlessness of Christ is most certainly an essential doctrine...thanks.)

That was all he needed to do as the promises as to the flesh were about jews. But God knew the flesh was never going to be able to fulfill their end of that covenant and so it was never really about the flesh.

The flesh was always confined under sin in Adam (all flesh together) awaiting deliverance.

 

[mcgyver]

BTW...it occurred to me here that we are actually having a pleasant discussion and debate....

We're just liable to ruin our reputations...going on like that!

 

[mcgyver]

That was all he needed to do as the promises as to the flesh were about jews.

My point exactly...so what is it that made Jesus special, able to save outside of God's chosen people, the Jews?

 

[Who Says]

My point exactly...so what is it that made Jesus special, able to save outside of God's chosen people, the Jews?

It is what I said earlier.

From the beginning of time it was God's good pleasure in the Son that all things were made by him and through him and are sustained by means of him.

That is a lot of power !!! :yes That is what he momentarily divested himself of to become a man.

And we have trouble kneeling down from a height no higher than the side of our bed !!!

That is what our kneeling is supposed to signify ya know.

 

[Sparkey]

Let me ask...how does the passage in 1 John 4 et.al. tie into John's gospel, chapter 1 verses 1 and 14?

More specifically verse 14 where the Apostle writes: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. After declaring that the word was with God, and the word was God?

You've done well in your examination of the doctrine -- Jesus is the Word, and like you have richly affirmed, "the Word was with God and the Word was God."

He humbled himself to come in flesh - and become lower than the angels to demonstrate that which He alone could rightly see: The very heart of His Father in Heaven. God is a Spirit that more than fully fills all heaven and all earth. Who can know Him? Only Him who was sent in flesh, the one who was aquainted with sorrow and showed us the love that is our God. The life of Christ, the anointed One, the Messiah --> is the only lens by which His Father (now ours) can be rightly seen. Consider the efforts of the scholars and those of His day. They set out to understand the requirements of God's Law --and better understand who God was, but they missed the biggest parts (the weightier matters of the Law: Justice and Grace, that God is altogether Good and that we are to love Him from the fullness of our hearts as we love others (who are His Creation and His children, like as we) in the same manner that we love ourselves.

The doctrine of denying oneself, and the willingness and expectation of those things behind the instruction, "take up your cross daily," also comes to mind. Jesus, in flesh, demonstrated how man is to walk by the Spirit of God on water --above the trials and tribulations of the flesh. Peter saw that demonstration with his own eyes and in that instant of jumping faith called out, "Lord, me too - call me to you so I can walk (above the waters) to you!"

He is the man that shows the way so clearly that his very name is called "The Way" and "The Truth". Another essential doctrine that comes to mind is that we are to submit to all lawful authority. The spirit of rebellion that was in my during my youth contributed to lawlessness as I said, "If it feels good, do it!" Understanding is joined hand in hand to departing evil and to my shame this came late in life. Respect of lawful authority (which comes from God) is another very basic tenent of our Faith.