Unity and Uniformity 2

Major said:
ONLY to allow conversation and of course ADDITION-- I post a list of "Essentials" of the Christian faith.......

The deity of Christ.
John 10:30 says, “I and the Father are one.” Jesus was claiming deity, and, interestingly enough, He did not deny that He was God. Another example is John 20:28, when Thomas says, “My Lord and my God!” Again, Jesus does not correct Him by saying that He is not God.

Salvation by grace.
Ephesians 2:8-9
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast” There is nothing we can do to earn God’s favor or gain access to heaven apart from His grace.

Salvation through Jesus Christ alone.
Acts 4:12 tells us that “salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” This passage speaks of the name of Jesus and His saving power. Another example is found in the book of John. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). No one gets into heaven except by faith in the saving work of the Lord Jesus Christ on his or her behalf.

The resurrection of Christ.
The Christian faith is based on Christ crucified and resurrected to life. “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Lastly, to deny Christ’s bodily resurrection (John 2:19-21) is to deny that Jesus’ work here on earth was a satisfactory offering to God for the sins of mankind.

The gospel.
“That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” This is the essence of the gospel.

Monotheism.
Quite simply, there is only one God

The Holy Trinity.
Three distinct Persons in ONE God head. “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” While this verse mentions all three Persons of the triune God, it does not call them the Trinity. So to understand the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, we must look at the “totality” of Scripture and glean from it the definition.
Click to expand...
Major, off the cuff, I would add the Virgin Birth, we wouldn't want to overlook His humanity.
 
bobinfaith said:
Hello crossnote, Chris and Musicmaster;

Does it seem that Christians who have these discussions are more divided? Not so. The statement, "non believers don't have these kinds discussions get along better and avoid division." I don't buy that because the purpose of having a God discussion is not sinful, yes, there will be different views but this can be healthy, not sinful. There's just one prerequisite, ya gotta know your Bible, whether a little or much.

Christians will shy away from these discussions of writing/speaking or listening because they are afraid of confrontation, or they don't want to be challenged and learn. Is this timidity?

MM, in your statement, In philosophy, the idea of opposing beliefs both being true is called a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Unitarians out there don't seem to be unfamiliar with that concept.

This is a good post but please elaborate, brother. I'm short of something and need a little help understanding what you're saying.

When Chris says, I don't think we have to be identical clones is so true and I feel that's the problem in God discussions. We're not recognizing God's creation of each of us that also includes being uniquely different in our individual thought, thus the reason for discussion which is one of the KEYS to being in one accord as disciples.

I agree with crossnote's post, once again, we are uniquely different in our individual thoughts but it has to align with Scripture. After all, shouldn't all we speak be God-breathed? If our doctrines are divided as many will say, then lets talk about it.

God bless you all and your families.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that, Bob. I made a correction in my statement, and it looks like you had already copied it before my correction was published. I made a grammatical error with a double negative that I corrected.

It now says, "In philosophy, the idea of opposing beliefs both being true is called a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Unitarians out there seem to be unfamiliar with that concept."

CN made a valiant attempt at explaining my meaning, given my erroneous double negative. Sorry about that, CN.

What I was getting at is that ALL doctrinal differences that do not agree cannot all be true, as Unitarianism suggests. Only one is true, and all others false, or they are all false in relation to God's absolute Truth. Those are the only two possibilities that do not violate the law of non-contradiction in the philosophical profession.

I hope that makes more sense, given that I didn't do the proof reading I should have done before publishing that post.

It also seems that my having brought this topic up may be cause for some gross misunderstanding once there was an introduction of the idea of "clones" being brought into the mix. That's usually a warning sign to me that it's time to drop it entirely as that tends to be a prelude to some unsavory levels to which this discussion might sink. I don't want anyone to think that I'm doing a wholesale attack against their doctrines. I never meant for it to be taken that way, and therefore am backing out of this in order to keep the peace.

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
Sorry about that, Bob. I made a correction in my statement, and it looks like you had already copied it before my correction was published. I made a grammatical error with a double negative that I corrected.

It now says, "In philosophy, the idea of opposing beliefs both being true is called a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Unitarians out there seem to be unfamiliar with that concept."

CN made a valiant attempt at explaining my meaning, given my erroneous double negative. Sorry about that, CN.

What I was getting at is that ALL doctrinal differences that do not agree cannot all be true, as Unitarianism suggests. Only one is true, and all others false, or they are all false in relation to God's absolute Truth. Those are the only two possibilities that do not violate the law of non-contradiction in the philosophical profession.

I hope that makes more sense, given that I didn't do the proof reading I should have done before publishing that post.

It also seems that my having brought this topic up may be cause for some gross misunderstanding once there was an introduction of the idea of "clones" being brought into the mix. That's usually a warning sign to me that it's time to drop it entirely as that tends to be a prelude to some unsavory levels to which this discussion might sink. I don't want anyone to think that I'm doing a wholesale attack against their doctrines. I never meant for it to be taken that way, and therefore am backing out of this in order to keep the peace.

MM
Click to expand...

No worries, MM,

Actually, thank for helping me understand what you were sharing. I do agree and the reason I needed help is because Unitarianism has a big following here in the SF Bay Area.

A simple thought. Instead of getting all worked up when we don't understand, I feel it's always best to question as part of learning in our discussions.

Are you considering writing Unity and Uniformity 3? I think Back to the Law would already have 7 sequels with 7k views and 249 posts. lol!

God bless you, brother.
 
crossnote said:
Major, off the cuff, I would add the Virgin Birth, we wouldn't want to overlook His humanity.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That is exactly why I said additions!

And now that I have thought more on it --- I would add The 2nd Coming of Christ. Some may not agree but if we do not believe that as and essential, then I think we also question His 1st Coming.

Then...although we are not permitted to discuss, The Rapture may be an essential also.

Then what about Creation?
 
Major said:
Absolutely. That is exactly why I said additions!

And now that I have thought more on it --- I would add The 2nd Coming of Christ. Some may not agree but if we do not believe that as and essential, then I think we also question His 1st Coming.

Then...although we are not permitted to discuss, The Rapture may be an essential also.

Then what about Creation?
Click to expand...
Yes, the 2nd Bodily[/b Coming. Come to think of it, this is beginning to look like the Fundamentals written at the turn of the 20th Century to ward off theological liberalism.

I don't think I'd include the rapture as an essential.
 
crossnote said:
Bob, MM will speak for himself, but I took it that he is pointing out the fact that those who poo-poo doctrine with statements like 'doctrine divides' have that as their own doctrine, hence a contradiction.
Click to expand...

Are you sure...?

I had decided I never understood what point MM was trying to communicate, and that in the end I was only being aggravating.. haha
 
crossnote said:
Yes, the 2nd Bodily[/b Coming. Come to think of it, this is beginning to look like the Fundamentals written at the turn of the 20th Century to ward off theological liberalism.

I don't think I'd include the rapture as an essential.
Click to expand...

If the Tim Lahaye version of rapture is included in fundamentals then I'm out, as I hold no such belief.

But I absolutely await the second coming of Christ..
 
bobinfaith said:
No worries, MM,

Actually, thank for helping me understand what you were sharing. I do agree and the reason I needed help is because Unitarianism has a big following here in the SF Bay Area.

A simple thought. Instead of getting all worked up when we don't understand, I feel it's always best to question as part of learning in our discussions.

Are you considering writing Unity and Formity 3? I think Back to the Law would already have 7 sequels with 7k views and 249 posts. lol!

God bless you, brother.
Click to expand...

Worked up? Me? I fully agree that discussion is the absolute best way to see where others stand.

You see, the introduction of "clones" thrown into what I was sharing, it made me think, "Whoops. Time for me to get off that topic if what I'm saying is going to be guided over into that extreme of misrepresentation." It wasn't you who threw that in. It simply served as a friendly warning to me that the conversation isn't going to go well when extremes are introduced that are not at all representative of what I said.

I explained my position very well...or so I thought. I specifically addressed the oneness of Christ Jesus with the Father, and yet "clones" was thrown in that signaled a radical departure from holding to the qualifier I intentionally made use of in order to try and ensure there were no misunderstandings.

So, my withdrawal was a peace-keeping tactic to ensure we all get along in the midst of strong feelings some may have about holding to whatever pet doctrines some may have that they do not want challenged in any form or fashion. I've debated Th.D's, and enjoyed it thoroughly, but laymen...that's another matter entirely. I won't go there.

I'm glad I was able to clear the fog of my making from an earlier conversation. I'm not surprised about Unitarianism having a large following in the SF area. That belief system has philosophers of many stripes "turning over in their graves," so to speak.

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
I explained myself well.. or so I thought
Click to expand...

No... probably me. I'm having a bad time right now, and trying to power through..

I missed a lot that may have led to your thinking, and was trying, and failing, to get a handle on what you were saying...

I'll stop trying for conversations, I suck at them right now. Better to disappear.
 
Last edited:
Have y'all ever watched Turik try and answer laymen and students. Some of them would run circles around him, digging rabbit holes so numerous that he ended up stumbling all over the stage (figuratively speaking) trying to keep up. I've watched him try to do the dance with some folks, and I had such empathy for what he was trying to do. I suspect the cameras helped him to temper his responses to some of those kids. Some of them were such whelps.

MM
 
Chris1 said:
No... probably me. I'm having a bad time right now, and trying to power through and keep my mind occupied.

Yesterday I ended up crying like an idiot because the pain is so bad.. and when I can't get my own coffee, water, or use the bathroom without help I can get kind of depressive, and it's not a good look for me...

So I thought hey... I can get online and talk more - it's not like I'm doing anything constructive anyway.

I missed a lot that may have led to your thinking, and was trying, and failing, to get a handle on what you were saying...

I'll stop trying for conversations, I suck at them right now.
Click to expand...

C1, it's not you. I sometimes crawl up onto a horse so high and lofty that I think that maybe sharing some of the greater depths of my thoughts and desires will be understood. I simply crashed and burned on that one. I do that often. Sometimes fail miserably. I don't blame you. I simply realized that I need to back off and keep things more "surface" content rather than digging down deep into things in myself that don't serve as much of an interest to others. Words on a screen can be so misunderstood. I can see things clearly in my own thoughts, but getting them out more clearly in words...well, they don't always come out right. Sometimes people end up offended without my having ever meant to offend anyone.

When the "clone" word came up, I flinched in the realization that I had done it again...I've cast something out there without any provocation, nobody asked, and it was likely something nobody really would be receptive to talking about on a level of understanding my inner world of thougts and experiences. I've been told that I'm articulate and precise. Yeah, right... Well, I've offended plenty enough of people without even trying, so checking my pace and words has become more of defensive mechanism out of consideration for others than for me to continue railroading my thoughts out there just to force upon others what they may not want to hear.

Does that make sense? I love people so much, and sometimes its just too overwhelming for some. Working toward that oneness Jesus spoke of, as exists between Himself and the Father...I want that so bad, I weep out of longing for it, but it's a pipe dream in a world of people who are microcosms of self. That's how we all have been raised. Self reliance and self-sufficiency. That's the mark and measure of modern, real men, and real women...or so I was taught.

Perhaps I'm just a wimp. I seem to desire what many others don't really want. So, I just chalk it up as being me, not others. I want something that's just not going to happen in this life. Finding people who desire genuine fellowship with other believers is almost impossible. In the home fellowships I've been involved, I've always stated one rule, "Leave your religious tendencies and other inferiorities outside on the doorstep and pick them back up on your way out. Let's come in here and have REAL fellowship. It just doesn't seem to take hold. Holding to differences seems to be too strong a tie to let go, even for just a couple of hours.

So, I may have failed again to stir the depths of understanding in this, and I accept that. At least I tried, and offer my love and affection for all here.

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
C1, it's not you. I sometimes crawl up onto a horse so high and lofty that I think that maybe sharing some of the greater depths of my thoughts and desires will be understood. I simply crashed and burned on that one. I do that often. Sometimes fail miserably. I don't blame you. I simply realized that I need to back off and keep things more "surface" content rather than digging down deep into things in myself that don't serve as much of an interest to others. Words on a screen can be so misunderstood. I can see things clearly in my own thoughts, but getting them out more clearly in words...well, they don't always come out right. Sometimes people end up offended without my having ever meant to offend anyone.

When the "clone" word came up, I flinched in the realization that I had done it again...I've cast something out there without any provocation, nobody asked, and it was likely something nobody really would be receptive to talking about on a level of understanding my inner world of thougts and experiences. I've been told that I'm articulate and precise. Yeah, right... Well, I've offended plenty enough of people without even trying, so checking my pace and words has become more of defensive mechanism out of consideration for others than for me to continue railroading my thoughts out there just to force upon others what they may not want to hear.

Does that make sense? I love people so much, and sometimes its just too overwhelming for some. Working toward that oneness Jesus spoke of, as exists between Himself and the Father...I want that so bad, I weep out of longing for it, but it's a pipe dream in a world of people who are microcosms of self. That's how we all have been raised. Self reliance and self-sufficiency. That's the mark and measure of modern, real men, and real women...or so I was taught.

Perhaps I'm just a wimp. I seem to desire what many others don't really want. So, I just chalk it up as being me, not others. I want something that's just not going to happen in this life. Finding people who desire genuine fellowship with other believers is almost impossible. In the home fellowships I've been involved, I've always stated one rule, "Leave your religious tendencies and other inferiorities outside on the doorstep and pick them back up on your way out. Let's come in here and have REAL fellowship. It just doesn't seem to take hold. Holding to differences seems to be too strong a tie to let go, even for just a couple of hours.

So, I may have failed again to stir the depths of understanding in this, and I accept that. At least I tried, and offer my love and affection for all here.

MM
Click to expand...

I'm the one who said clone you know...

I just wasn't sure where you were - what you were trying to impart.

I believe we can have fellowship apart from doctrine or difference, but sometimes you seemed to be saying one thing, then another and I was unable to follow your intention.

And that is because I'm in too much pain! Normally I can follow nearly anyone (but for a few)... but not right now.

I can't roll onto my side without screaming - the pain is that bad. I can't move short of laying flat on my back without screaming... I almost went to the ER yesterday except I know they can't help me..

I really need to stop trying to engage in thoughtful discussions when I can't think.

I can make a few sentences make some sense but not much beyond that. So I apologise...

Continue on... :)
 
Chris1 said:
I'm the one who said clone you know...

I just wasn't sure where you were - what you were trying to impart.

I believe we can have fellowship apart from doctrine or difference, but sometimes you seemed to be saying one thing, then another and I was unable to follow your intention.

And that is because I'm in too much pain! Normally I can follow nearly anyone (but for a few)... but not right now.

I can't roll onto my side without screaming - the pain is that bad. I can't move short of laying flat on my back without screaming... I almost went to the ER yesterday except I know they can't help me..

I really need to stop trying to engage in thoughtful discussions when I can't think.

I can make a few sentences make some sense but not much beyond that. So I apologise...

Continue on... :)
Click to expand...

Actually, you did good. I had all kinds of things I wanted to say on the topic, but it likely would not have been all that uplifting to everyone.

I wish there were something I could do for you. If I recall, it's your back?

Are you scheduled for surgery or anything? We can pray from the distances we are from one another.

Please do keep posting. We all need each other.

MM
 
Musicmaster said:
Have y'all ever watched Turik try and answer laymen and students. Some of them would run circles around him, digging rabbit holes so numerous that he ended up stumbling all over the stage (figuratively speaking) trying to keep up. I've watched him try to do the dance with some folks, and I had such empathy for what he was trying to do. I suspect the cameras helped him to temper his responses to some of those kids. Some of them were such whelps.

MM
Click to expand...
Are you referring to Frank Turek?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top