Essential Doctrines

[Who Says]

I will leave Isaiah 9:6 for later comment so as to simplify the this needing expression here an now. I will begin where I see the error.

This makes Jesus God. Still, it is said that if we believe on the Name of Jesus, and that He was sent from God, we shall be saved. The essential issue upon which our salvation depends is not defined by the Bible as the "Divinity of Christ," although I do not dispute that -- instead it is that Jesus came in the flesh. As John clearly states, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us."

The central issue of the Bible depends upon us all returning to that divinity in our own image of God lest we will not be given salvation. And this is all of course governed by simple sense. It is not an issue of our being as great as Christ. It is an issue of our being his image just a he is the perfect image of God. Emotion will play on you here also. But that emotion is born only out of what you already choose to believe. And as long as you choose to believe anything you will not be able to see anything new or different.

Christ sees himself as those things in the sense that he is the anointed one through whom they are all fulfilled.

Please do not take offense as I try to explain the mechanic here of what is happening to you:
You will need to permit yourself to stop insisting on the idea for a minute so that you can become empty and able to see the other. But you have the idea lodged in you and therefore look to see proof of it. The proof that runs opposite will remain hidden from you so long as you do that. And therefore what I say can only seem silly as you have not really been able to look to see it and therfore have nothing to compare your own thoughts to.

When we look to the verse above to know what the "Doctrine of Christ" is, we see, ""For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." - 2 John 1:7 KJV

And so the unloving judgment begins due to an earnest belief in what is really only the illusion of knowledge.

You will see men as AntiChrists who are not and in seeing them that way you will not be able to not condemn them in your heart.

That is the very trap I speak of.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings, Who Says,

I didn't think anything you said sounded "silly". Have others confronted you in that fashion? You sound like you think you know what I think. That's not "silly" but only incorrect. Have you some disagreement with what the bible clearly says? Jesus came in the flesh. That essential doctrine is so clearly emphasized that we are admonished to not even so much as say, "God speed" to those who profess otherwise.

 

[Who Says]

Greetings, Who Says,

I didn't think anything you said sounded "silly". Have others confronted you in that fashion? You sound like you think you know what I think. That's not "silly" but only incorrect. Have you some disagreement with what the bible clearly says? Jesus came in the flesh. That essential doctrine is so clearly emphasized that we are admonished to not even so much as say, "God speed" to those who profess otherwise.

I do not know what you think but I do as a general principle know how it works for myself. So when I share with you to try to help you I have only myself to compare it to. What a predicament, hey!!!

It is the old saying, If you think the advice might be useful then use it. If not just ignore it because I can only share what works for me.

See, even when you say, "That essential doctrine is so clearly emphasized that we are admonished to not even so much as say, "God speed" to those who profess otherwise." I still have my way in which I have come to see that.

So what I am talking about is, 'How do we set our views down long enough to see each others view on things?'

I cannot really say you are wrong until I have actually seen what you say. And visa-versa.

I think that is good though because it makes us have to put love first if we are to be able to do that. And I have said time and again, knowledge is not what will save us, but the love of God coming and going in and out and through us.

Here is a post that might shed some light on it: http://www.christianforums.net/f20/who-antichrist-34964/#post524749

 

[mcgyver]

Hey all...

Well, since this has turned into a discussion about the deity of Christ...and as such is obviously either an essential, or non essential doctrine...I reckon we can continue along this track.

Question: In the OT who is THE angel of the Lord (as opposed to AN angel of the Lord)? Anyone familiar with the Jewish concept?

 

[mcgyver]

You may well be right - I have not looked at John specifically with the question "Is John saying that Jesus is God" in mind.

But let's be clear: even if John does not intend to deal with this question, this odes not mean that John does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. As I have argued in a number of threads, and no one has engaged the argument to show how it is wrong, the gospel of Luke strongly makes the case for the divinity of Jesus.

Perhaps you would agree, and perhaps you are not even directly addressing the matter of Jesus' divinity. Fair enough. However, all should understand that absence of a "Jesus is divine" argument in John is not an argument against the divinity of Jesus.

​

I'd like to take a stab at this, if I may...because out of all the Gospels, John is the "universal" gospel. That is to say, whereas Matthew and Mark were written primarily to the Jews, using Jewish concept and frames of reference; and whereas Luke is written to an individual, the Gospel of John is unique in that John uses Greek concepts and frames of reference all through his gospel.

Might say that John wrote his gospel with an eye toward the gentiles. By this time of course, Greek thought, Greek methods of reasoning, Greek concepts, and the Greek language and culture had pervaded the gentile world at every level of society. Even the Romans were (seriously) affected by Greek culture and philosophy.

A good example of this is in his use of light/dark contrasts...and even in his presentation of Christ Himself. At the raising of Lazarus, we see that Jesus was deeply troubled in his spirit. The word so translated is from the verb embrimasthai which has no direct translation in English. Rieu translates this verb as: "He gave way to such distress of spirit as made his body tremble". Then we see "Jesus wept".

A direct contrast to the Greek concept of god. The hallmark of the Greek concept of god was apatheia: The total inability to feel any emotion whatsoever.

See what I mean?

John then is writing to people who had no messianic expectation, no Old Testament scripture, and to whom Jewish thought and culture was both foreign and incomprehensible.

In using the word "logos" in the opening chapter, the Greek (gentile) reader would immediately understand that John is declaring that Jesus Christ is in fact God...and in verse 14 declares the incarnation.

Now we can pick it apart in the 21st century; but historically, linguistically, and culturally that is exactly what the average Joe would have understood when he read John's gospel.

The only serious challenge to John's assertion that Jesus was God in the flesh came from the gnostics who attempted to blend Christianity with Greek philosophy late in the first century...by middle of the second century gnosticism had pretty well been rejected...

Anyway...there 'tis.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Question: In the OT who is THE angel of the Lord (as opposed to AN angel of the Lord)? Anyone familiar with the Jewish concept?

For a while I have wondered about stuff like this. I have even considered that when the LORD God appeared in the OT He seemed to do so via an avatar or thru "the angel of the LORD." I have heard some say that since angel means messenger and archangel can mean chief messenger that Jesus was Michael the Archangel since Jesus is the LORD's chief messenger.

 

[Sparkey]

Surfing the internet lead me to the Christian Research Institute which claims to provide Christians worldwide with carefully researched information and well-reasoned answers that encourage them in their faith. My first impression was that they are a solid organization that speaks on many issues well. Although I have yet to plumb the depths of the site I did encounter a tab on the top menu of the site entitled, "Essentials of the Faith " and clicked it.

I wanted to fetch their definition of Essential Doctrines here for further discussion:

The Essentials




What Are The Essentials?
The Essentials of Christianity

Essential Christianity. We hear a lot of discussion about essentials and non-essentials, but what are the essentials of Christianity?

When we talk about the essentials of Christianity we're referring to the basic elements that make up and characterize our faith, and which, of course, separate it from other beliefs. Let's survey these doctrines.

First, we believe in the authority of Scripture, which is another way of saying that the Bible is God's inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. It's the ultimate source for knowledge about God, as well as the definitive guide for our daily lives.

Next we affirm the existence of a triune God or one God in three distinct persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This God is self-existent, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, holy, righteous, and loving. God created the universe from nothing and He rules over His creation sovereignly including both human and angelic beings.

We also hold that man is a physical and spiritual being who is created in God's image. But because of his sin or transgression, man has lost his fellowship with God. The extent of sin is so great that its effects continue to this very day in the form of cruelty, suffering, and death.

By God's grace, Jesus Christ - Who is fully God and fully man - was sent to save us from our bondage to sin. We believe that Christ was born of a virgin, died for our sins, physically rose from the dead, and will one day return to judge the world and deliver His people. Faith in Christ is the only means by which mankind can escape eternal damnation and judgment.

Finally, we recognize the church as God's ordained institution headed by Christ. The church is composed of all believers, and is organized for worship, for fellowship, for the administration of the sacraments, for spiritual growth and support, and for evangelizing the world.

 

[mcgyver]

For a while I have wondered about stuff like this. I have even considered that when the LORD God appeared in the OT He seemed to do so via an avatar or thru "the angel of the LORD." I have heard some say that since angel means messenger and archangel can mean chief messenger that Jesus was Michael the Archangel since Jesus is the LORD's chief messenger.

Hey ToT! Hope you had a good weekend! :waving

Well, in Jewish thought, no one could see God in the flesh and live. We know that Jesus said that no one had seen God at any time.

Now there were folks who had visions of course...Isaiah was called into the presence of God, and the poor guy probably felt like Jello in a microwave (Woe is me, for I am undone...)

Others spoke with God, Moses and the burning bush for example.

But yet...there is a conundrum. The scripture tells us for example that the Lord appeared to Abraham by the Terebinth tree in Mamre. Textually there are two things that stand out...firstly is that it was indeed God who appeared to Abraham, and secondly that He and His angels were in the form of men...who ate and drank with Abraham. They were in fact in the flesh and seen not only by Abraham, but by Sarah also. (Gen. 18)

Again in the book of Joshua, we see Joshua encountering a man with a sword who identifies Himself as "the commander of the army of the Lord"...Joshua falls on his face and worships (and this person accepts that worship) and then tells Joshua to take his shoes off, for where he (Joshua) stands is Holy...(Joshua 5:13-15)

But how can this be, if no one has seen God at any time?

The answer is that this was "The angel of the Lord"...a Theophany (appearance of God in the flesh in the OT).

There has been a term coined relatively recently: a "Christophany" (appearance of Christ in the OT)...although I prefer the first definition.

So then, this begs the question: "If God could incarnate Himself as a man in the OT...as a person known as The Angel of The Lord...why could He not do the same in the NT in the person of Jesus Christ?"

Something to think about...for sure.

 

[elijah23]

In the short time that I've been here, I've seen denial of the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc., from those who claim the title "Christian".

So then, the question is: "Are there essential doctrines that one must adhere to in order to be a Christian, and if so, what are they?"

Curious as to what folks think.

The teachings of Jesus Christ are found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I think they should be obeyed to the letter.

We are to be chaste and humble. We are to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and love our neighbors as ourselves.

 

[Who Says]

The teachings of Jesus Christ are found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I think they should be obeyed to the letter.

We are to be chaste and humble. We are to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and love our neighbors as ourselves.

Amen Elijah.

The problem I see with that question ("Are there essential doctrines that one must adhere to in order to be a Christian, and if so, what are they?") is that regardless of which way we believe we are going to say we believe the way we do because we believe it makes us a Christian.


As I see it, the real problem is when we let our own view cause us to see another who in their own understanding of who Christ is yet is able to capture and imitate the the holiness that is the important part of who Christ is to us as regards his coming in the flesh, and because of our personal view we label that other person non-Christian.

Because we cannot do that and it not affect the quality of the love we are supposed to show for each other.

 

[Hitch]

Amen Elijah.

The problem I see with that question ("Are there essential doctrines that one must adhere to in order to be a Christian, and if so, what are they?") is that regardless of which way we believe we are going to say we believe the way we do because we believe it makes us a Christian.


As I see it, the real problem is when we let our own view cause us to see another who in their own understanding of who Christ is yet is able to capture and imitate the the holiness that is the important part of who Christ is to us as regards his coming in the flesh, and because of our personal view we label that other person non-Christian.

Because we cannot do that and it not affect the quality of the love we are supposed to show for each other.

That is an out and out lie. It is deceitful of you to mock the scriptures. The text is plain and well known

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[Sparkey]

2 John 1:7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Greetings Hitch,

You're correct when you state that there are false prophets and deceivers meaning that the problem does not reside in judgment of the Christian but rather in the lack. What happens there?

The way I see it is that some may believe that they have a secret pact with God and want to be allowed to keep on sinning. In the heart they hear themselves pray, "forgive me as I forgive others," and from that position, deduce that if they are greater than God and forgive all, even those who do not turn from sin -- then they too will be forgiven (and be allowed to serve their true desire).

The problem with that "agreement" is that it is an agreement with death, not God.

 

[Hitch]

Greetings Hitch,

You're correct when you state that there are false prophets and deceivers meaning that the problem does not reside in judgment of the Christian but rather in the lack. What happens there?

The way I see it is that some may believe that they have a secret pact with God and want to be allowed to keep on sinning. In the heart they hear themselves pray, "forgive me as I forgive others," and from that position, deduce that if they are greater than God and forgive all, even those who do not turn from sin -- then they too will be forgiven (and be allowed to serve their true desire).

The problem with that "agreement" is that it is an agreement with death, not God.

I think I get your meaning sparrow.

It is one of the reasons its important to deal with the outward, in this case , denying Christ is God incarnate, or we will never have a chance at the inward. The necessary decisions being much less subjective.

 

[Sparkey]

The doctrine of Christ is essential to the Christian faith. It is by believing that we have eternal life. Paul lists other foundation doctrines as well:

"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." - Hebrews 6:1-2 KJV
[FONT=&quot]

• The Doctrine and Principles of Christ (The Messiah, Son of God)
• Repentance from Dead Works
• Faith (Trust and Belief) toward God
• Doctrine of Baptisms (Baptism in water, in the Holy Ghost and the baptism of Fire)
• Laying on of Hands
• Resurrection of the dead
• Eternal Judgment

[/font]

 

[Elijah674]

The doctrine of Christ is essential to the Christian faith. It is by believing that we have eternal life. Paul lists other foundation doctrines as well:

"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." - Hebrews 6:1-2 KJV
[FONT=&quot]

• The Doctrine and Principles of Christ (The Messiah, Son of God)
• Repentance from Dead Works
• Faith (Trust and Belief) toward God
• Doctrine of Baptisms (Baptism in water, in the Holy Ghost and the baptism of Fire)
• Laying on of Hands
• Resurrection of the dead
• Eternal Judgment

[/FONT]

Good post & True. The problem is befor this! God gave the pattern of His Required FLAWLESS Doctrine's Way to Salvation in Psalms 77:13, as heavens REQUIRED patteren!

The Outer court FIRST had to be entered representing from gentile to Israel's saved ones with the 'free choice of the Conditions' of this starting & then onward to safe maturing Eternal Life. (Nah.1:9) Sanctification is what is required. Rom. 8:14 'MATURES' one [IF] they so 'choose!)

Now, where many make eternal shipwreck is at the Altar of sacrifice. (their first required choice) This they claim to do (WORK! Accept ALL future Required CONDITIONS!!) Then they toss out the James chapter two's teachings completely.

Grace they.. 1/2 Eternal Gospel Alone say, nothing more is required! ,I,I,I,I am SAVED!! Rom. 8:1 is claimed & being led on, with the Godheads REQUIRED WAY into MATURE Rom. 8:14 Truth is given the toss by each & every one of them... along with their Salvation while turning around & going on bact to their apostate 'DOCTRINE' teaching's of just this one of many of OSAS.

And Heb. 5 'milk'?? These ones have not even hardly found a 'hint' of the Required 'ETERNAL GOSPEL OF CHRIST'. Rev. 14:6 & surely 2 John 1:9! They have NO more an idea of the CONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS of Salvation than did Cain of Gen. 4:7!

Matt. 4:4 & 2 Tim. 3:16 is way past the abondaned Altar of further on requirements! Yet, they all as a church refuse to Obey God & go forward while yet fullfilling the Prophecy 2 Peter 2:19 of 'promise them liberty..' See all on from 17-22 ibide. Very SAD!

--Elijah

 

[mcgyver]

Of course I believe that one of the most essential doctrines of the Christian faith is that Jesus Christ is both fully man, and fully God (the Hypostatic union); and without this being true, then the whole doctrine of salvation and redemption falls like a house of cards.

One of the key reasons that Jesus must be God in the flesh is found in His own words, and the laws of the OT.

Jesus said: Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)

One of the laws that Jesus fulfilled was the law of the Kinsman Redeemer. This was a position established and recognized in the Torah...Leviticus 25, Numbers 35; and there were certain duties and requirements that had to exist for the Kinsman Redeemer (Heb. Goel)

The requirements were:

1. He must be a near kinsman...i.e. Blood relative

2. He must be able to perform

3. He must be willing to perform

4. He must assume all the obligations

Some of the duties were:

1. Redeem property

2. Redeem a near kinsman from slavery

3. Raise up children for his brother's widow

4. To assume the role of protector

All the above were codified in Jewish law...from the Book of the Law.

Now then, why is it that Jesus must be God in the flesh to fulfill His role as Kinsman redeemer?

There are several reasons:

First is the matter of being a near kinsman. Jesus as a man was a blood relative only to His immediate family. As a mere man, under the law (and God does not break His own law, nor does He circumvent it); Jesus could only be the Kinsman redeemer for His mother, brothers and sisters, near cousins, etc. He could never be the goel for the gentiles for example.

However as God in the flesh, He could in fact redeem all men. It is no accident that there are two people who are referred to as "The son of God" in the scriptures: one of course is Jesus Christ, but the other one is Adam: the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3 :38

Therefore, under the law given by God Himself, only God Himself could be the near kinsman of Adam. All other near kin were long dead and gone.

This becomes exceedingly important when we look at the remainder of the duties, requirements, and obligations of the goel.

That Jesus was willing to perform is without question...but the ability to perform as the goel for all men is only found if in fact Jesus is God in the flesh, for God is Adam's goel.

Additionally, only God can assume All obligations under the law for all mankind.

How about the duties then?

1. Only Jesus as God in the flesh could redeem God's property...that which was "handed over" by Adam.

2. Only Jesus as God in the flesh could redeem (buy back) mankind from slavery to sin and death.

3. Only Jesus as God in the flesh can raise up children for God from among all the nations. (c.f. John 1:10-13)

4. Only Jesus as God in the flesh can be our protector, our high tower, our shield and our refuge under the law.

So then, if Jesus was/is not God in the flesh...there is no way that the laws of the kinsman redeemer could ever have been fulfilled...and we have not been redeemed...

More to follow.

 

[Elijah674]

Of course I believe that one of the most essential doctrines of the Christian faith is that Jesus Christ is both fully man, and fully God (the Hypostatic union); and without this being true, then the whole doctrine of salvation and redemption falls like a house of cards.

One of the key reasons that Jesus must be God in the flesh is found in His own words, and the laws of the OT.

Jesus said: Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)

One of the laws that Jesus fulfilled was the law of the Kinsman Redeemer. This was a position established and recognized in the Torah...Leviticus 25, Numbers 35; and there were certain duties and requirements that had to exist for the Kinsman Redeemer (Heb. Goel)

The requirements were:

1. He must be a near kinsman...i.e. Blood relative

2. He must be able to perform

3. He must be willing to perform

4. He must assume all the obligations

Some of the duties were:

1. Redeem property

2. Redeem a near kinsman from slavery

3. Raise up children for his brother's widow

4. To assume the role of protector

All the above were codified in Jewish law...from the Book of the Law.

Now then, why is it that Jesus must be God in the flesh to fulfill His role as Kinsman redeemer?

There are several reasons:

First is the matter of being a near kinsman. Jesus as a man was a blood relative only to His immediate family. As a mere man, under the law (and God does not break His own law, nor does He circumvent it); Jesus could only be the Kinsman redeemer for His mother, brothers and sisters, near cousins, etc. He could never be the goel for the gentiles for example.

However as God in the flesh, He could in fact redeem all men. It is no accident that there are two people who are referred to as "The son of God" in the scriptures: one of course is Jesus Christ, but the other one is Adam: the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. Luke 3 :38

Therefore, under the law given by God Himself, only God Himself could be the near kinsman of Adam. All other near kin were long dead and gone.

This becomes exceedingly important when we look at the remainder of the duties, requirements, and obligations of the goel.

That Jesus was willing to perform is without question...but the ability to perform as the goel for all men is only found if in fact Jesus is God in the flesh, for God is Adam's goel.

Additionally, only God can assume All obligations under the law for all mankind.

How about the duties then?

1. Only Jesus as God in the flesh could redeem God's property...that which was "handed over" by Adam.

2. Only Jesus as God in the flesh could redeem (buy back) mankind from slavery to sin and death.

3. Only Jesus as God in the flesh can raise up children for God from among all the nations. (c.f. John 1:10-13)

4. Only Jesus as God in the flesh can be our protector, our high tower, our shield and our refuge under the law.

So then, if Jesus was/is not God in the flesh...there is no way that the laws of the kinsman redeemer could ever have been fulfilled...and we have not been redeemed...

More to follow.

Sure, you are correct!;) But the simple 'seeing for me' is that there could be NO Gospel [DOCTRINE OF CHRIST] that is ETERNAL without an ETERNAL God/Christ!

And that even goes back into ETERNITY even before the Heb.s other Worlds, + angels including, 'created' Licifer before his rebellion! One day we will know if we are 'faithful' just how long the Godhead had a faithful Lucifer befor he rebelled.

And the great sorrow they must have felt even in the for/knowledge of Eternity. Very SAD! Even to the point of mankinds first 'Son's Eternal Loss of Adam & Eve. And all we know about how long he was around, is by seeing him being a mature man.

But John who penned 'Extra' much Truth, & lived the longest of all the N.T. Prophets did indeed have a MATURE Hold of the ETERNAL DOCTRINE OF CHRIST!

--Elijah