Imagine if your body and your spirit and your soul independently could act - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are One and act together as One, which is how each are given the credit for raising Jesus from the dead. The issue comes when men try to label something and build a doctrine around it. Stick with the source of the information and state it as it is. People can't understand the manifestations of God so they invent stuff to sooth their brains rather than just accepting faith and move on. Just my thoughts.
What must a Christian believe?
- Thread starter Godspell
- Start date
I agree.
A good question to answer the OP would be what must a Christian refuse to believe in or accept as good, righteous or holy.
Romans 1:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
--So a Christian cannot believe it is ok to:
suppress the truth about the existence of God
not glorify or thank God
give credit to false images, entities and ideas
engage in sexual impurity
be male and give up natural sex with women to have sex with men
stop thinking about God and his plan for you
be consumed or filled with all sorts of sin, evil and imorality
approve of others to do or believe all this
Romans 1:
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
--So a Christian cannot believe it is ok to:
suppress the truth about the existence of God
not glorify or thank God
give credit to false images, entities and ideas
engage in sexual impurity
be male and give up natural sex with women to have sex with men
stop thinking about God and his plan for you
be consumed or filled with all sorts of sin, evil and imorality
approve of others to do or believe all this
My personal opinion and all... but I get kinda uncomfortable defining doctrines and beliefs based on what I don't believe....
The issue is Logic... For example...
Just because A is true - it does not mean the Converse is false....
If A then B - this does not imply if B then A must precede....
I know drawing lines in the sand is sometimes useful as a distinction - but I would rather state what I do believe and let the chips fall where they may....
Just my $0.02
The issue is Logic... For example...
Just because A is true - it does not mean the Converse is false....
If A then B - this does not imply if B then A must precede....
I know drawing lines in the sand is sometimes useful as a distinction - but I would rather state what I do believe and let the chips fall where they may....
Just my $0.02
I understand your position. However, doctrines defined by early Church Councils, especially the first 7 are useful in gaining a better understanding, and IMO are trustworthy. There is a reason we still go to church on Sunday. Sermons are trustworthy and help us gain a good understanding of scripture and theology.
I kind of see what you're saying here...but how do you KNOW it is the male seed where sin nature comes from? It seems to me that if God became man (like us), He would have to possess the sin nature of man (like us) in order to overcome it through death and resurrection. I'm still trying to figure this one out, so please give an explanation.
Do you mean the Old Testament law no longer serves a purpose in the New
Do you mean to say the Old Testament covenant law no longer serves a purpose in the New Testament covenant? Because I think Paul said the law is used like a mirror for us to see ourselves in, so we can recognize our sinful nature and how much we NEED the Savior Jesus. What did you mean by saying, "The Law is dead to us now." I know WE are dead to the law, but I think the law is very much alive. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I wish to be set straight.
Excellent question my brother and I will do my best to explain this and welcome to this CFS.
The doctrine of original sin involves inheriting the character of the parent, it is by the genes that this is inherited. Neither, Adam nor Eve originally possessed the nature they ended transmitting to all their descendants, until after the fall. Biblically the sin nature is passed on through the man.
This is why it was not passed on to Jesus: He had no human Father to be part of His conception. It is in Adam the bible states we all sinned, not Eve. Rom.5:12 tells us sin entered the world through one man and that everyone is given a built in death warrant because of their sin nature that has been passed on.
The poison of sin and death enters through the male seed into the seed of the woman by the fusion of the two. Mankind’s mortality was procuredby Adam by his disobedience, and it is inherited to all of us. This continues from generation to generation, as long as the seed (egg) of the woman is fertilized by the seed of the man.
The sin nature resides within the heart of man, the spiritual nature of our being, in our very soul. The human body is not sinful in itself, but can be used for sin, as its base nature dictates what is already in ones heart, one can only act upon their nature. The Bible teaches that sin is present at conception, as David the Psalmist stated, “in sin did my mother conceive me”, also in Job 14:4; “no one can make something clean out of something unclean.” This is why God gives man a new nature to rule over his sin nature.
Perhaps it was not said correctly by us. Me agreeing with Moose. What was meant is that the law was never given to the New Testament believer but the Old Testament believer.
It was a standard they were to live by. It was given for the reason- to increase sin and show us that we are sinful.
The law is given to increase sin to show our sinfulness. Rom. 5:20: “Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound.” Gal 3:19: “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made.”
In other words when Christ (the seed) was born there would be an and to the law.
Gal. 3:23-25: “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor (to lead us) to Christ, that we may be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. " NO MORE (Old Testament) LAW. V. 26 “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” Everything in the New Testament covenant is by faith, not law.
Rom.11:6 “And if by grace then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. but if it is by works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work." It is either one or the other it can't be both, these are two different covenants.If you choose to be under one then you are removed from the other.
Rom. 6:14-15 “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.”
How can the law be used to prevent sin, to not let sin have mastery over you? It can’t. When people today insist that we must keep the laws of the Old Testament covenant they are removing themselves from the covenant of grace and are not under the headship of Christ but are under Moses.
The New Testament makes it clear in Jn.1:17: “The Law came through Moses.” GRACE and TRUTH came through Jesus Christ.
Paul made it clear through his writings "I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." (Gal 2:21). Gal 2:19: "For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God.” in other words, Paul is saying the law is dead to him. We don't use what is dead to have life.
Those who had been under the law ( the Jewish people) had been delivered from it to something far better and so has the church.
Do you think that doctrines should then be based on the Bible, the Word of God as it is written to men as they are?
Honestly, I don't really understand the question - so I will answer what I think you are asking...
I think Doctrine statements are perhaps the Epitome of "Scripture by Committee".... A perfect example of why God sends his message through the anointed Prophet... Ironically, I can't find one example of bona-fide Scripture written through committee....
The thing that mystifies me most about doctrine statements is that churches spend endless time crafting a statement that isn't scripture and no on in the entire church STRICTLY believes.... As such - churches get into real trouble if they use a Doctrine Statement as anything more than a guideline and a way to reference back to the actual scripture..
Okay, I think I understand better what you mean. I will be giving this some more thought. Thank you much!
I very much appreciate the time you have taken to answer my questions...which of course has only encouraged me to ask more....
Are we not all saints because we are believers? (Acts 9:13, 9:32, 26:10; Romans 1:7, etc etc) We all deserve privacy, but the Gospel of Luke speaks of Jesus being Holy to the Lord because he was the firstborn who opened Mary's womb (Luke 2:21-23). Also, Mary went to complete her purification rites shortly after Jesus was born, and offered a sin offering of two turtledoves. Could you explain why she needed to offer sin offering for herself? (Luke 2:24)
See I disagree, because even then they didn't have the end times figured out. They thought what Jesus said about John not dying until He returns led them to believe the end was here. When John died they all stopped talking about the Lord's return. Why? Because there was no prophecy given or fulfilled that matched their doctrine. It wasn't until prophecy began to be fulfilled that it started up again.
Wasn't the sacrifice in Luke 2:23-24 for Mary and not the the child. As far as I can tell Jesus never offered a sacrifice other than Himself on Calvery.
No.....thank you my friend. May the Lord bless you!
Well, let me see if I can clear it up a little. Basically we are talking about knowledge and truth and where does it come from...correct? That would be the word we are giving it and that word is DOCTRINE.
It is not the quanity of truth that we are debating but the SOURCE of that truth. Where does genuine truth come from and how can we then call it DOCTRINE??? Philosophically, that is something I learned a long time ago and its name is "Epistemology". Epistemology has to do with how we know what we know and then how do we know what it is that is true thus being able to be called DOCTRINE!
There are actually 3 ways to analyze the differant claims to what is Doctrinal truth.
1). Rationalism.
What I really mean by this is the idea that truth can be determined by experimentation, by our sense, by our observation of phenomena. In other words, this is because whether we believe that ulitmate truth is a product of what goes on in our minds instinctively or wheter it is something put into our minds by what we see, experience or ecperiment with, all of it comes down to a matter of one's own mind, reason and experiences as being the ultimate determination of truth. I know how confusing that sounds and it will require a little thought to process it all.
2). Ecclesiastical Authority.
This is not as confusing and is easier to handle. This is where most people find the conflict and it is the same conflict we see played over and over on every Christian forum web site. It says that my Church is the ultimate authority. Whether I think some DOCTRINAL statement is right or wrong.....if my church says that it is right then it is right for me. Even the Scriptures are subservient to my church's authority because the Bible is actually a product of my church. So then, ultimately what is right and what is wrong, what is true DOCTRINE and what is false is determined by what the church has offically determined it to be through it proclamations.
3). Divine Revelation.
The 3rd possible basis of authority from which DOCTRINE can be derived from is Divine Revelation. Since there are no Biblical writers writing Divine Scriptures today, the only conclusion then is that the revelation given to us in the Bible is the Word of God.
Martin Luther once said......"My conscience is captive to the Word of God".
That means when I think one thing but the Bible says aomething else about that thing, it is right and I am wrong and I have to change my whay of thing in order to know what truth is about that subject.
When anyone says....."I do not accept the Bible as being correct on this point", they are then operatring from the base of "rationalism" or "Ecclesiastical Authority."
Now then.....every generation of believers tend to take the teachings of their pastors, bishops and professors further than those men wanted them to go. If there is an opening. or a perceived loophole, or some place to go with that loop hole, we will go there.
You see, it is just this simple. When we depart from the Divine revelation of God as found in the Bible, we have opened the door to whatever deviation a person chooses to engage in. He may choose do deviate a little or a lot but once he does, it is a slippery slope down hill.
In our discussion here, IMO the choice is not the real issue. The issue is the attitude toward the Scriptures itself.
That is a great point! Wouldn't that have been great if it were recorded in the Bible, the disciples asking Jesus about the need or lack of need for animal sin sacrifices?