Author Topic: Christians. (Read 22699 times)

stefferweffer · « **Reply #50 on:** May 05, 2009, 05:27:09 PM »

"A "contextualist" (which I consider myself) would classify the Bible as a collection of books, each to its own given time period and location. A book such as First Corinthians, for example, would be viewed as a book written by Paul, an early Christian theologian, to a Greek church to deal with specific issues in that church (not a book written by God to provide specific instructions to Christians for the rest of time)."

Just so I'm clear, you don't claim to be a Christian, correct?

Colin Michael · « **Reply #51 on:** May 05, 2009, 05:33:26 PM »

Quote from: stefferweffer on May 05, 2009, 05:27:09 PM

"A "contextualist" (which I consider myself) would classify the Bible as a collection of books, each to its own given time period and location. A book such as First Corinthians, for example, would be viewed as a book written by Paul, an early Christian theologian, to a Greek church to deal with specific issues in that church (not a book written by God to provide specific instructions to Christians for the rest of time)."

Just so I'm clear, you don't claim to be a Christian, correct?

Where would you draw that conclusion?

YourMathTeacher · « **Reply #52 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:56:54 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 05, 2009, 05:33:26 PM

Where would you draw that conclusion?

I think she was basing that comment on what others have said, not necessarily on what you have said. It seems to me that she was looking for verification from you directly.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #53 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:43:52 PM »

Well, the label of "Christian" currently carries a certain connotation which I don't know if I'm okay with; however, my own belief system contains elements by which one could easily it as a "Christian" belief system (i.e. a trinitarian view of God, sanctification/justification, faith, causual relationships between reaping/sowing, a similar eschatology, and compatible free-will and determinism) although there may be other elements that would probably be frowned upon by the stereotype (i.e. ultra-morality/amorality, post-modernism, human mortality, and other things).

I don't think faith in the Bible (or claiming that it was "written by God" for all of time), belief in the the rapture/antichrist, or anything along those lines can be claimed as part of "being-a-christian" as much as it is just current pop-Christian trends

You could say that I view the same doctrine through an individualist lens: constructed out of my own language and understanding.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #54 on:** May 05, 2009, 10:48:55 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 05, 2009, 08:43:52 PM

Well, the label of "Christian" currently carries a certain connotation which I don't know if I'm okay with...

I was sad to read this. I know that I said that your path would lead you away from Christ in the next 10 years, but I didn't know that you were already at a point of disassociating yourself from being "Christian".

Colin Michael · « **Reply #55 on:** May 05, 2009, 11:39:10 PM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 05, 2009, 10:48:55 PM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 05, 2009, 08:43:52 PM
Well, the label of "Christian" currently carries a certain connotation which I don't know if I'm okay with...
I was sad to read this. I know that I said that your path would lead you away from Christ in the next 10 years, but I didn't know that you were already at a point of disassociating yourself from being "Christian".

Self fulfilling prophesy, perhaps?

EDIT: In fact, this seems that it very easily will become a self fulfilling prophesy.

Prof Underwood · « **Reply #56 on:** May 06, 2009, 12:04:05 AM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 05, 2009, 11:39:10 PM

Self fulfilling prophesy, perhaps?

Not actually considering that I didn't prophesy it for my "self" but for someone else. However, I'm still hoping that at some point you will actually prove me wrong

All it takes is for you to come to a place that you lose faith in your ability to reason being the ultimate source of truth, and to return to your trust in God's Word that you had as a child.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #57 on:** May 06, 2009, 12:11:40 AM »

Quote from: Prof Underwood on May 06, 2009, 12:04:05 AM

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 05, 2009, 11:39:10 PM
Self fulfilling prophesy, perhaps?
Not actually considering that I didn't prophesy it for my "self" but for someone else. However, I'm still hoping that at some point you will actually prove me wrong All it takes is for you to come to a place that you lose faith in your ability to reason being the ultimate source of truth, and to return to your trust in God's Word that you had as a child.

By having the prejudgement that I would fall away from Christ, you now posite my actions to support your theory which changes your reaction towards me, which in turn change my response to you, and eventually leads to your prejudgement being fulfilled.

I personally don't see any merit in having an incorrect view, nor see anything "better" that comes out of having that view.

crustpope · « **Reply #58 on:** May 06, 2009, 08:41:54 AM »

I am disturbed.

Not because of Colins revelation, but because of much of the behavior of others that Colin has had to endure. While I know and understand that none of us "pushed" Colin into his present viewpoint, he seems to have journeyed there on his own and that is his choice, it seems painfully clear that many people have used this board to try to 'browbeat" or riducule and shame Colin into what they consider an acceptable belief system.

The problem is that Christianity carries with it many "flavors" of believe, some liberal, some conservative and many on a sliding scale in between. Why it is that we often "insist" that our belief is better or "more perfect" than others continues to amaze and sadden me.

I can't help but wonder that, while Colin himself is responsible for his own ideas and beliefs, that perhaps we on this board did not help him by giving him a viable "alternative" too the ideas he was embracing. If we view this as "Colin leaving the faith" then I also view it as, many on these boards have "shut the door behind him."

This really bothers me. Have others gotten this impression or am I the only one? Does this bother other people or am I the only one? Why do we insist on attacking those who carry different beliefs than us? Are we that terrified of dissention that we must destroy it when it rears its head? And if our actions are truly based in Fear, then is that the appropriate reaction since "perfect Love casts out Fear?"

soul seeker · « **Reply #59 on:** May 06, 2009, 10:43:06 AM »

@ Prof: I'm not going to speak for Colin, but I see where he may shy away from the "label" of "Christian". Of course, I may not like the label for other reasons. 80% of Americans feel that they are "Christian" and yet our country is in trouble. So I like the term "committed Christian." But labels in general can be dangerous.

@ Crustpope: I wonder if you may be misreading Prof's intentions. (I can't speak for others because I don't know them as well.) We both know Prof personally, and we know that he is not malicious and IMO not a judgmental person. I think in his zeal and passion that he may come off that way or pushy but I think he is motivated by 2 things.
1. He cares for Colin (and for most people, in fact)
2. He wants to address heresy.
I don't think either of those points are motivated by fear or "killing" dissension. The Bible encourages in multiple passages to deal with heresy and a brother in error. (Now this is where people may disagree about who is in error.) He feels that Colin is in error about his belief/view/outlook of the Bible, and he hopes to correct it out of concern for Colin's welfare and not fear of his ideas.

But then again, I'm not Prof.

Bryon · « **Reply #60 on:** May 06, 2009, 10:45:42 AM »

There is only one perfect view. God knows Himself and knows us better than we can ever hope to know Him or to know ourselves. Which person's view is closest to perfect, I am not certain. In humility I conceed that.

However, the Bible talks many times about the arrogance of "doing what is right in your own eyes" or "relying on our own understanding."

If I err, it will be on the side of taking the Bible and the teachings of the church too literally, and not mixing in enough of my own thoughts about how I think this all works.

I don't think it is rude to encourage others to be as cautious. I should not do it in a rude way, but there is a place for dissenting with Colin's views.

crustpope · « **Reply #61 on:** May 06, 2009, 11:00:05 AM »

Quote from: soul seeker on May 06, 2009, 10:43:06 AM

@ Crustpope: I wonder if you may be misreading Prof's intentions.

While my post came soon after Prof's, he was not one of the people to whom I was reffering. Other than a few posts, which I likely misinterpreted, I have seen Prof's interactions with Caleb to be encouraging, but there are other, less mature people posting who disturb me. my hope is that any non-christian who stumbles upon these boards judge us not to harshly because of their words.

Quote from: Bryon on May 06, 2009, 10:45:42 AM

I don't think it is rude to encourage others to be as cautious. I should not do it in a rude way, but there is a place for dissenting with Colin's views.

Im not talking about encouraging other so be as cautious, I am talking about those who continually tell Colin that he "isn't a christian if he believes such and such," or people who, through thier incredulity ask quesitons or make assumptions such as "all Christians should be like X." These type of actions tend too exclude people from the body of believers instead of inviting them to become a greater part of the body.

Its almost as if some people act like "if you arent like me, then I am going to brow beat you and berate you until you either A) come around or B) leave for good." While debate and encouragement to see different (better?) views is fine, Berating someone in order to "convert" them to your viewpoint will never win any souls or encourage any one to become a stronger christian. Even if someone ends up agreeing with you, they likely did so because they are just tired of getting beat up and their "faith" will be like the seeds landing on the path, where they are trampled by the feet of men.

I encourage debate, so long as it is in a spirit of love and encouragement. Some of what I have seen, though, cannot, by any stretch of the imagination fit into this category. Those are the comments and people I am adressing.

Bryon · « **Reply #62 on:** May 06, 2009, 11:35:09 AM »

While I'm pretty sure that I agree with your intent, I want to be doubly sure that I understand.

Is there room in your position for Paul's command to excommunicate (i.e. have nothing to do with some in the church who repeatedly sin and are unrepentant, or who mislead others with false teachings about Christ)?

Or is "inviting them to be a greater part of the body" more important than presenting a spotless bride to Christ?

I don't put Colin in that category by any means. I'm just wanting to see where you stand in principle.

crustpope · « **Reply #63 on:** May 06, 2009, 11:52:22 AM »

Quote from: Bryon on May 06, 2009, 11:35:09 AM

Is there room in your position for Paul's command to excommunicate (i.e. have nothing to do with some in the church who repeatedly sin and are unrepentant, or who mislead others with false teachings about Christ)?

in principle, yes I agree with it. But I do not believe that excommunication should be a permanent state and I am not sure that paul meant for it to be that way. I am also not sure as to how best this process would take place.

I do believe that we should warn people against destructive behavior or ideas but always leave room for God's Grace to let them back in.

soul seeker · « **Reply #64 on:** May 06, 2009, 12:14:24 PM »

Quote from: crustpope on May 06, 2009, 11:52:22 AM

I do believe that we should warn people against destructive behavior or ideas but always leave room for God's Grace to let them back in.

I think Paul addresses both in the letters to the Corinthians. He states that the church should not ignore the man that is in continual sin and that he must leave since he displayed no remorse. Between the two letters they kick him out and then would not let him back in. In letter 2, Paul encourages the church to let him back in because he exhibited a heart change (to release the ban if you will). So I think both are acceptable in certain circumstances.

Bryon · « **Reply #65 on:** May 06, 2009, 12:19:23 PM »

I agree. In fact, I think that the excommunication (when a chance to return is offered) can act as a catalyst for a heart change. It can present the sinner/false teacher with a crisis moment where he can allow his hard heart to be penetrated by the Holy Spirit, thus giving him the opportunity to repent.

Without the excommunication, his sin or false teaching could cause a cancer in that church.

The Schaef · « **Reply #66 on:** May 06, 2009, 01:17:24 PM »

I don't know if I'm smart enough to create my own personal theology out of whole cloth, but I am smart enough not to trust my limited individual knowledge, limited experiential knowledge, biases that direct my thinking, external influences that have greater impact due to the limited audience (one), and so forth. Things like that make it a very dangerous proposition for me to ignore thousands of years of theological study and go my own way, on a philosophy built on my own ideas and towards my own ends.

I can appreciate what Matt is trying to say, and I've not wanted to speak in such a way that gives Colin a helpful push out the door, but the fact of the matter is that he has not seemed terribly receptive to the concept of Christianity being a bigger tent than what his experience shows, nor enthusiastic about the idea of working within the system to revive and redirect the church. So now genuine Christians have to suffer not only from the people within the church that give us a bad name, but also the otherwise good and well-intentioned souls that leave us to fend for ourselves. The church will struggle to deal with either of these impediments; I greatly fear that the combination of the two may destroy it for generations to come.

soul seeker · « **Reply #67 on:** May 06, 2009, 01:26:42 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on May 06, 2009, 01:17:24 PM

So now genuine Christians have to suffer not only from the people within the church that give us a bad name, but also the otherwise good and well-intentioned souls that leave us to fend for ourselves. The church will struggle to deal with either of these impediments; I greatly fear that the combination of the two may destroy it for generations to come.

Schaef, it really depends on your definition of the Church. Remember (which I'm sure you do which is why I'm curious of your definition) that Jesus promised that the gates of Hell could not stand up to it. Plus, Satan has been trying to bring down the "Church" for a couple of millennium. Some of the problems back in NT times still happen today. So that is why I ask: what definition of church gets destroyed?

The Schaef · « **Reply #68 on:** May 06, 2009, 02:15:21 PM »

The collective, organized American church(es).

When Jesus prophesied about The Chruch (tm), He meant that the good guys are going to win. Of that I have no doubt. But in the meanwhile, I have deep concerns about the ability of the organized church to continue in America, and about the negative impact that will have on individuals, the ripple effect on other innocent people from the loss of so much potential for effective ministry, and the fallout from the destroyed reputation of the church hampering evangelization efforts.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #69 on:** May 06, 2009, 03:50:38 PM »

Doesn't a lot of this stem from how we define the word "Christian"? I think that this has become one of the most misused words in our language. First of all, it is a noun, not an adjective. Just this fact alone escapes most people, who use such phrases as "Christian principles", as if the word is ever used that way in scripture. There are Christ's principles, or biblical/scriptural principles. Christians don't determine the principles which we live by, Jesus does.

I raise this question of "What is a Christian?", because quite frankly I am frightened how loosely the word is used these days. For example:

1) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the divine inspiration of all scripture? I don't see how, but then again the reason I don't is because of what I read in those scriptures.
2) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah? Again, from the scriptures I don't see how.
3) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus is Divine and the Son of God our heavenly Father? Isn't this a requirement, according to the scriptures?
4) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe and practice the teachings of Jesus and His inspired apostles/writers? Not if the bible is true.
5) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the miraculous, such as heaven and hell, the resurrection of the dead, angels and demons, the devil, the Holy Spirit, and all the miracles in the bible? Again, if the bible has the answer, then it is "No."

Being a Christian, according to scripture, is MUCH more than saying that you like some of the things that this Jewish Rabbi in 30 AD had to say. It is a mental conviction that everything in the bible is true and inspired by the Holy Spirit, meaning that what it says about Jesus is true, meaning that I had better comply with Jesus' teachings if I hope to be saved.

So you can see why I may have concerns, out of love, for someone claiming allegiance to Christ but denying the inspiration of the scriptures and referring to an inspired apostle as a "theologian" writing solely to address problems of a congregation 2000 years ago, rather than for all Christians for all time.

Sorry to rant, but if we can't even agree on what a true Christian is, then we will never come to any agreement on the rest.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #70 on:** May 06, 2009, 03:52:21 PM »

The reason I am hesitant to give myself the label of "christian" is because the label "christian" nowadays carries the connotation of a certain type of character, one which I am not eager to have everyone prejudge me to carry. It kind of goes back to the whole "self fulfilling prophesy" thing.

Non-Christian A agrees with you on point A and disagrees with you on point B. You unconsciously classify him positively because he agrees with you on point A and think something unconsciously like "he'd agree with me on point B if he became a Christian, but he's not so it makes sense."

Christian B agrees with you on point A and disagrees with you on point B. You classify him negatively because you're both Christians; he should agree with you on point B. You think something along the lines of "well, if he was a 'real' Christian, he'd be like me and agree with me on point B."

A label makes a universal between a vast amount of people. You, however, only have access to a minority of that so you compare that person to either yourself if you have that label or to others who share that label if you don't have that label or if you compare yourself to those people. By this, you judge character based on their ability to fulfill your prophesy.

Quote

The question of "what is a Christian" was addressed in the Apostle's creed.

1) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the divine inspiration of all scripture? I don't see how, but then again the reason I don't is because of what I read in those scriptures.

Well, there goes the early church, unless you mean ALL scriptures. Also I don't see how personal letters qualify as scriptures, especially when the author doesn't even claim to be speaking on behalf of God.

Quote

2) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah? Again, from the scriptures I don't see how.

This point fails because it is based on your earlier assumption, which is faulty. It is however, correct to say that it is necessary for a Christian to believe in the Christ as a messiah; we can see this in the church's history and creeds.

Quote

3) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe that Jesus is Divine and the Son of God our heavenly Father? Isn't this a requirement, according to the scriptures?

In the 19th century, for a time perhaps. I think you should read James and 1-3 John, they seem to emphasise the opposite.

Quote

4) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe and practice the teachings of Jesus and His inspired apostles/writers? Not if the bible is true.

I'd say yes. Those writings were contingent: I don't see how they can be applied to the now.

Quote

5) Can you be a Christian if you do not believe in the miraculous, such as heaven and hell, the resurrection of the dead, angels and demons, the devil, the Holy Spirit, and all the miracles in the bible? Again, if the bible has the answer, then it is "No."

Ressurection of the dead would most likely be the only necessary belief of those.
St. Luke, for example, believed in universal salvation. Many Christians don't believe in miracles and trinitarian doctrine didn't exist during the time of the apostles.

The Schaef · « **Reply #71 on:** May 06, 2009, 04:06:53 PM »

Is it not incumbent upon you to take ownership of your faith, and shun people's prejudices rather than hide from them?

The OT sections of these boards, if anything, demonstrate a broad range of perspectives among brethren, but reasonable people aren't going to say that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in dunking versus sprinkling for baptism, for example. So either your concern among fellow believers is a largely-unfounded fear, or you are allowing the prejudices of unreasonable people to influence the way you present yourself, or you wish to shed tenets of the faith that are so basic to the church that they are universally agreed upon despite these wide differences. If the latter is true, then maybe criticism of those unorthodox ideas is not unwarranted.

stefferweffer · « **Reply #72 on:** May 06, 2009, 04:08:42 PM »

Sorry, but you lost me after "The reason I am hesitant to give myself the label of "christian"...."

And if you do not believe that the apostles claimed to be speaking the words of God/Christ, you are sincerely mistaken. But you have obviously read the bible and it has not convinced you of this, so it is unlikely that I can.

Colin Michael · « **Reply #73 on:** May 06, 2009, 04:12:20 PM »

Quote from: The Schaef on May 06, 2009, 04:06:53 PM

Is it not incumbent upon you to take ownership of your faith, and shun people's prejudices rather than hide from them?

The OT sections of these boards, if anything, demonstrate a broad range of perspectives among brethren, but reasonable people aren't going to say that you can't be a Christian unless you believe in dunking versus sprinkling for baptism, for example. So either your concern among fellow believers is a largely-unfounded fear, or you are allowing the prejudices of unreasonable people to influence the way you present yourself, or you wish to shed tenets of the faith that are so basic to the church that they are universally agreed upon despite these wide differences. If the latter is true, then maybe criticism of those unorthodox ideas is not unwarranted.

I was speaking on terms of the subconscious psychological mechanisms of self-fulfilling prophesy.

Quote from: stefferweffer on May 06, 2009, 04:08:42 PM

Sorry, but you lost me after "The reason I am hesitant to give myself the label of "christian"...."

And if you do not believe that the apostles claimed to be speaking the words of God/Christ, you are sincerely mistaken. But you have obviously read the bible and it has not convinced you of this, so it is unlikely that I can.

No offense, but if you don't have a reason for believing that I'm sincernely mistaken, why do you believe so?

The Schaef · « **Reply #74 on:** May 06, 2009, 04:35:35 PM »

Quote from: Colin Michael on May 06, 2009, 03:52:21 PM

Well, there goes the early church, unless you mean ALL scriptures. Also I don't see how personal letters qualify as scriptures, especially when the author doesn't even claim to be speaking on behalf of God.

People in the early church revered the Scriptures available to them at the time, and those authors don't CLAIM to be the voice of God either, so this second requirement seems arbitrary.

Quote

This point fails because it is based on your earlier assumption, which is faulty. It is however, correct to say that it is necessary for a Christian to believe in the Christ as a messiah; we can see this in the church's history and creeds.

The Scriptures are part of the church history. To present these as contradictory makes no sense.

Quote

In the 19th century, for a time perhaps. I think you should read James and 1-3 John, they seem to emphasise the opposite.

This seems to be cherry-picking Scripture instead of regarding it as a cohesive whole.

Quote

I'd say yes. Those writings were contingent: I don't see how they can be applied to the now.

You honestly cannot see any modern application for the teachings of Jesus? At all?

Quote

St. Luke, for example, believed in universal salvation. Many Christians don't believe in miracles and trinitarian doctrine didn't exist during the time of the apostles.

He did not say anything about trinitarian doctrine, FWIW. But since all of those aspects are recorded in Scripture, and nearly all of them directly in the gospel accounts of Jesus' life, I have a hard time imagining anyone believing in the saving power of Jesus while disbelieving in almost every significant detail of His life and ministry.

News:

Author Topic: Christians. (Read 22699 times)

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef

The Schaef