 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Seeing Is Believing = Mormon Truth | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/29/2004 7:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Chris: I guess what I am saying is that it seems to me that what you are doing is taking the (preceived) ambivelance of the church in history and saying if they can recognize all these varying factions of people who disagreed on these wide subjects than how can these people not be called Christians (Mormons, for instance). While that may be true (I disagree with it, of course), I would be interested in what your personal view of what a Christian constitutes. What is a Christian in your personal view. Not how the church handled such things, but what you view a Christian to be. For if you can make a statement that Jehovah Witnesses are Christians, then you must have some personal way to judge such a thing. Thanks. Harold | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/29/2004 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | I mentioned the 2 dictionary definitions of "Christian" not because I think they're superior to other definitions of "Christian" but because I don't recall having seen any other definitions of "Christian". I would agree that these 2 are the best of the 2 I've seen, and if that counts as an endorsement, then so be it. 
If every Christian should be able to give a good definition of what a Christian is, then that should apply to you, too, shouldn't it, Harold? So what's your definition?
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/29/2004 9:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: fair enough. But if I give my definition, are you going to give your definition?
It would seem to me that you would be able to give a definition of what a Christian is quite easily, given that you are labeling people Christian. Or is it that you are simply taking another's term and using it as a standard?
It would seem that all people who call themselves Christian would have some definition of what that would be (right or wrong), given that they are using the term on themselves.Or do you use terms without knowing what they mean? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/29/2004 10:00 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/29/2004 10:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Not really, Chris. I simply wanted to know how you define a Christian. But apparently you not want to be tied down to any definition of a Christian, yet you continue to label people Christian. If you will not be tied down to a definition, then we cannot have an effective dialogue.
It was you who said Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are Christian, yet they have differing views of who Jesus Christ is. I asked you how that could be, and wondered about your definition of a Christian so that I could further understand where you were coming from. If someone gives a label to something, it would seem that they could easily define what that label means, given that they are using it. But you seem to not want to be pin down to anything.
The Bible depicts God as Truine, Father, Son and HOly Spirit, yet one God. Jesus Christ is the second person of this Truine God who become man, died for the sins of humans and rose from the dead. He is the only way to heaven. Jesus himself said, "This is eternal life, to know you, the one True God, and him who you have sent." It would seem, to Jesus anyway, that it was important to know exactly who God is and who Jesus was. So that is why I am interested in knowing what you think defines a Christian. But if you are simply going to take another's definition, I think I'll politely decline to continue on this thread. A dictionary's definition of a Christian doen't really interest me. Thanks for the imput. Harold | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/29/2004 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Not really, Chris. I simply wanted to know how you define a Christian. But apparently you not want to be tied down to any definition of a Christian, yet you continue to label people Christian. If you will not be tied down to a definition, then we cannot have an effective dialogue.
I understood you also to be labelling people as Christian (and non-Christian) when, in your second post in this thread, you wrote: "Chris: while I appreciate the humor ('we have') even you should recognize that no matter how much Mormons insist that they are Christians, the fact is they are not viewed by any branch of the historical Christian church as Christian, given their denial of the Trinity as articulated by said church."
quote:
It was you who said Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are Christian, yet they have differing views of who Jesus Christ is.
Yes. Just like Jews and Christians are both theists, even though they have differing views of who God is.
quote:
If someone gives a label to something, it would seem that they could easily define what that label means, given that they are using it.
All I ask is that you hold yourself to the same standard to which you hold me when you apply this principle.
quote:
But you seem to not want to be pin down to anything.
Pin me down to the OED definition. I can live with that.
quote:
The Bible depicts God as Truine, Father, Son and HOly Spirit, yet one God.
Yes, but it doesn't specify the precise sense in which the 3 are 1. You yourself said on another thread: "Does it bother anyone that God just didn't come out and say, this is what I am? Instead just hints and stuff? Not I am Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but just pieces and parts that we fit together. SO much speculation and debate . . ."
quote:
Jesus Christ is the second person of this Truine God who become man, died for the sins of humans and rose from the dead.
He certainly is and did.
quote:
He is the only way to heaven.
Absolutely.
quote:
Jesus himself said, "This is eternal life, to know you, the one True God, and him who you have sent."
Yes.
quote:
It would seem, to Jesus anyway, that it was important to know exactly who God is and who Jesus was.
I don't think my brain is big enough for me to know exactly who God is. Remove the word "exactly", and I agree with you.
quote:
So that is why I am interested in knowing what you think defines a Christian. But if you are simply going to take another's definition, I think I'll politely decline to continue on this thread. A dictionary's definition of a Christian doen't really interest me.
Whenever possible, I try to use words the way the dictionary defines them.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/29/2004 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne,
You tell me, "Spen, love is more important than being right. But, for the record, my standard for discernment is the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and scripture (as well as reason and tradition) - on which all theological positions are based - scripture being the final authority." Love has content, it not a freestyle "feeling." Love between a man and a woman has objective content and form called "marriage." The identical feelings and actions without the objective content is a sin serious enough to get you damned. Being "right" with marriage is more important than being right with a feeling. This "love as a feeling" concept, especially when applied to spiritual expereinces what committing spiritual adultery means. If we follow imaginary "Christs" and claim to be resting in Christ as we experience false historical non-events, we would be committing spiritual adultery. This is the spiritual equivalent of "free love."
You claim that in your "discernment" that scripture is the final authority. I ask you to prove this and support Dr. Boyd's claims that fictional anti-events are resting in Christ. You cannot do this and yet you cling to your beliefs and your statement that you consider scripture as final authority. BUNK. You are inconsistent and you have not been able to reconcile this statement with your posts. You want to say what is truth, that scripture is the final authority, but you will not bow to it when it is applied and when you fail to find it supporting what you want to believe. This is not love but a defect. Love is based upon objective content first. I believe your definition of "love" is imaginary and not grounded on the scriptures and this is causing confusion.
When Jesus took the whip in the temple and beat people, this was tangible love, an eternal love that wished the very best for those people. When Jesus castigated the Pharisees in Matthew 23 calling them hypocrites, blind, whitewashed tombs, snakes, etc. - this was eternal and absolute love that He was expressing because He IS love. Observing Dr. Boyd teach a false gospel and claim that his exercises are "resting in Christ" without standing up and shouting, "NO," this is warm fuzzy hate. Those who would have an eternal care for his welfare and the welfare of those who read his book would all oppose this message out of love. Those who look the other way practice something else. May God bless Dr. Boyd and those who believe the teachings of this book that they may repent and return to the gospel.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/29/2004 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: If your brain isn't big enough to know who God is, then why should I believe you when you make statements that you believe certain people are Christians, when Jesus, in fact, claimed to be God, yet your brain isn't big enough to know who God is.
You say that you want to stick with words as the dictionary defines them, and that your brain isn't big enough to know who God is, yet dictionaries written by people who CAN tell you what a Christian is but you cannot tell me.
BTW, I did not say in my thread that God did not declare himself as a Trinity, nor that I could not understand him as Trinity. Both of these are pretty clear in scripture. I simply wish God were a little clearer.
Well, thanks anyway, Chris. Nice talking to you and thank you for your time. I had wished you would actually make a statement of what YOU believed a Christian to be, instead of simply responding to my words (BTW, I did give MY definition). I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you believe differing viewpoints could both be CHristian. Talking to you reminds me of many Catholics I know who grow up in the church, go through the sacraments, yet could not make a statement of faith. Good talking to you.
I do find it interesting that you agree that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, which makes him God, yet you also state that you believe Jehovah Witnesses are Christians, yet they deny the doctrine of the Trinity and do not believe Jesus was part of any trinity. Hmmm... | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/29/2004 12:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | John: I do completely agree with you. The term "CHristian" has lost any real meaning in America. Anyone truly is a Christian nowdays. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/29/2004 1:49 PM (GMT -6) | | | Chris: food for thought: if its so hard for you to define what a Christian, why is it so easy for you to say who a Christian is? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/29/2004 2:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Chris: If your brain isn't big enough to know who God is,
It is big enough for that. As I clearly stated, what it's not big enough for is to understand "exactly" who God is. How can a finite mind "exactly" comprehend infinitude?
quote:
You say that you want to stick with words as the dictionary defines them
Correct.
quote:
and that your brain isn't big enough to know who God is,
Incorrect. (See discussion above.)
quote:
yet dictionaries written by people who CAN tell you what a Christian is but you cannot tell me.
Sorry, I can't parse that.
quote:
BTW, I did not say in my thread that God did not declare himself as a Trinity
You said: "Not I am Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but just pieces and parts that we fit together."
quote:
I had wished you would actually make a statement of what YOU believed a Christian to be,
I honestly believe that the dictionary definitions of "Christian" are appropriate. I'm sorry that that fact is unsatisfactory to you.
quote:
I did give MY definition
I must have missed it. When you said "The Bible depicts God as Truine, Father, Son and HOly Spirit, yet one God. Jesus Christ is the second person of this Truine God who become man, died for the sins of humans and rose from the dead. He is the only way to heaven." were you implicitly defining a Christian as those who agree with you on those statements? If so, all the active Mormons I know are Christians.
quote:
I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you believe differing viewpoints could both be CHristian.
Yeah, I am a big tent kind of guy.
quote:
Talking to you reminds me of many Catholics I know who grow up in the church, go through the sacraments, yet could not make a statement of faith.
Oh, you want a personal statement of my faith in Christ? Well, why didn't you say so! Let me keep it short and sweet, since it's doubtful that an Evangelical's website is an appropriate place for a Mormon to be testifying. I believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. I believe that Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins in His anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane and in His subsequent suffering and crucifixion. He did this that we might not suffer if we would repent. I believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and I believe that all mankind will be physically resurrected because Jesus overcame the bands of death. I believe that God wants us to enter a covenant relationship with Him, and that the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes that relationship possible.
I also believe it is possible for someone to disagree with my testimony and still be a Christian.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/29/2004 4:57 PM (GMT -6) | | So if it possible for someone to disagree with you and still be a Christian, it still turns on what actually is a Christian.
If you don't know exactly who God is, Chris, how can you proclaim him as the true God, the person someone can trust?
Yes, Chris, I am saying exactly that.. If a person doesn't believe in the truine God, that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and that Jesus came in the flesh, died for our sins on the cross and rose again, then they are not a Christian.
I have to add Chris, that my father's family is from SAlt LAke City, he was raised a Mormon and I have dialogued with my Uncle (who is the leader of a stake (?) in Oregon) for years and they do not believe in the Trinity as Christians do. They believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who are one in purpose but seperate individuals, which is also the way God is described by one of your early church presidents. That is totally different from what Christians have traditionally believed about God.
But further I would like to know: how do you reconcil groups that believe differently about Jesus, yet both claim to be Christians (for instance, as I have stated before, evangelicals and Jehovah Witnesses?) Thanks again for your time, Harold | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 4/30/2004 1:27 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by moon_river_j
quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
Dr. Boyd is welcome to cling to his spiritual "Jesus" and his fictional anti-events.
Your friend,
Spen,
I am a non-fiction prose writer. Some would look at my writing as a prose writer and regard it as fiction, except they were my own personal experiences, many of them inspired by my prayer times with the Father.
This is a sincere question for you Spen. Don't you ever get just a little bit nervous judging the transformative event in Dr Boyd's (or others) lives as "anti-events" or as "ficticious anti-events" (isn't that like a double negative by the way which would make it an event?)?
I am very careful when it comes to judging something that happened in the life of another believer, especially something that brought about genuine transformation. The "ficticious anti-event" that took place in my own prayer life about 2 years ago brought healing and transformation to my life and dramatically changed my walk with the Father.
If Dr Boyd's experience was an anti-event...then praise God for anti-events. Obviously HE thinks they're a good idea!
God Bless,
Jo-Anne 
Jo-Anne,
I don't even get a little nervous when I judge Dr. Boyd's example as a fictional anti-event.When I call it an "anti-event," the anti is used in the sense of a substitution or replacement, not phony. Thus, it could also be labeled as a "sincere false replacement event." It is fiction, it is a replacement historical record. You write, "This is a sincere question for you Spen. Don't you ever get just a little bit nervous judging the transformative event in Dr Boyd's (or others) lives as "anti-events" or as "ficticious anti-events" (isn't that like a double negative by the way which would make it an event?)?" The reason that I don't get nervous in calling it a fictional anti-event is because that is exactly what it is. This is what Dr. Boyd has written down and what he described in the record of his book. I am not making something up, which is what he does, I am simply calling a spade a "spade."
I have never "judged" whether Dr. Boyd actually found freedom or comfort in this false historical record. That is subjective and would take place inside of him. Who am I to know? I know, and can be certain based upon the Bible, that what he is claiming to be "resting in Christ" is delusion (or perhaps man-made therapy based on self-delusion) and NOT the gospel. This is NOT where the Bible claims that we will find freedom to forgive others. The red airplanes are not the red blood of a crucified Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.
Jo-Anne, you state, "If Dr Boyd's experience was an anti-event...then praise God for anti-events. Obviously HE thinks they're a good idea!" Chris, my Mormon friend, would also claim that the spiritual expereinces that he has are a good idea and bring him comfort. Based upon your standard of "discernment" the Hindus who like their experiences, the Dali Lama, and even the overt occultists and nature worshippers would have something of value. That they feel better and comforted , I have no doubt. Thay you feel better and comforted, I have no reason to doubt. That Dr. Boyd feels better and comforted, I have no doubt. However, what I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that the experiences of the Mormons, the Dali Lama, and the example of Dr. Boyd are NOT the gospel, nor are they resting in Chist as he claims. This is a lie with potential eternal implications, the worst kind of lie because it is the most costly. He should repent and return to the message where God promises us eternal freedom.
 sadly
Spen, love is more important than being right. But, for the record, my standard for discernment is the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ and scripture (as well as reason and tradition) - on which all theological positions are based - scripture being the final authority.
I am thankful for the rare visions that the Holy Spirit has inspired during times of prayer. He meets us where we are and He alone knows our deepest need. Even to label the event as false is a judgment and I would hesitate to call something that the Holy Spirit has done in someone's like false, especially when the fruit is there to evidence a life that is being transformed into the image of God's Son.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
 (That's me Victor in Christ!)
Jo-Anne
Jo-Anne,
Your comments are very similar to the discussion that is happening between Feelinahole and Chris. Chris maintains that he and the Mormons are "Christians" because they believe in "a Christ." Feelinahole maintains that labeling them Christians is misleading because their "Christ" is not the Christ objectively revealed in the Bible. The Mormons also believe in "another testament of Jesus Christ." These additions and differences in the content of Christ are the core of the argument. Chris may be pious, kind, loving, articulate, and generous, living a life that is exemplary according to the outward actions - this doesn't change the fact that the content of his Christ is fundamentally different. If he continues to follow his Christ, the Biblical one will not know him. The same is true of Dr. Boyd and his imagainary Christ that is not the Christ objectively revealed in scripture that he describes in his book.
Your concept of "love" is similar in that you have tried to disassociate it with "truth." When it comes to faith, hope, and love - love is the greatest. God IS love. God IS also TRUTH. He calls Himself Truth. He is the Spirit of Truth. Love doesn't exist apart from or outside of truth. Love is NOT greater than truth at all, ever. To claim that love is greater than truth is defective and dangerous. Holding to the truth, being right based upon the standard of truth, IS an aspect of love. You cannot separate them. Listen to the content that Jesus gives us regarding love and what it looks like in the following verses. The content of true eternal love is ONLY found in the true objective Christ. John 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them (the objective ones) is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
John 15:10, "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full."
1 John 3:23, "This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us."
Dr. Boyd is exposed as a sincere person falsely claiming man's teachings are resting in Christ. In his book "seeing is Believing" he is preaching a different Christ and a substitute gospel, and in this he is like Joseph Smith. This is one reason why Seeing is Believing = Mormon Truth. The verses above ALSO link the objective content to "experiencing God" and His joy. If we keep His commandments to believe in the name, "the character, person" of the real revealed Jesus Christ, we abide in Him. Dr. Boyd has strayed and now teaches a Jesus of his imagainations that inspires false history for comfort. His Jesus says things that oppose the words of the real Jesus. In teaching this Jesus, Dr. Boyd brings a false comfort and a false joy, one of his own imagination. We find, "in vain do they worship me teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." May God help him, and all that follow his teaching to repent. May God also open the eyes of men like Chris, that they may understand and know the true Christ.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/30/2004 3:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
So if it possible for someone to disagree with you and still be a Christian, it still turns on what actually is a Christian.
I've lost track of the antecedent for the pronoun "it". What turns? I've given definitions I accept; you've apparently given yours. What are we talking about now?
quote:
If you don't know exactly who God is, Chris, how can you proclaim him as the true God, the person someone can trust?
That appears to be a non sequitur. Why should I need to know exactly who God is in order to proclaim him as the true God? Sorry to be repetitive, but you seem to have dodged the question of how finite beings can have an exact comprehension of infinitude. (Sorry for the goofy typography, but I'm at a loss for any other way to get your attention.)
quote:
If a person doesn't believe in the truine God, that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and that Jesus came in the flesh, died for our sins on the cross and rose again, then they are not a Christian.
Great. Assuming that the word "truine" that you've used three times now is intended to be the word "triune", that's fine by me.
quote:
I have to add Chris, that my father's family is from SAlt LAke City, he was raised a Mormon and I have dialogued with my Uncle (who is the leader of a stake (?) in Oregon) for years and they do not believe in the Trinity as Christians do.
There you go begging the question again.
quote:
They believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who are one in purpose but seperate individuals, which is also the way God is described by one of your early church presidents.
We do not accept the "homoousios" formulation of the Athanasian creed. We're not even sure what it would mean for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one divine "substance". But if you've ever made it clear to the 4th page of the preface of the Book of Mormon, you'll see that "The Testimony of Three Witnesses" concludes with the sentence "And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God." If you don't count the Johannine Comma, which is missing from the earliest extant manuscripts for the First Epistle of John, that's a more direct statement of the oneness of God than you'll find in the Bible. Of course, it doesn't use the word "homoousios" to describe that oneness, but neither does the Bible. Robert L. Millet, who is the Dean of the College of Religious Education at the Mormon Church's flagship university has written: "The Book of Mormon is a mighty witness of the fact that although the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct individuals, they are infinitely more one than they are separate." I agree with that statement.
quote:
That is totally different from what Christians have traditionally believed about God.
Have you extended your study of what Christians have traditionally believed about God back to the 4th Century A.D. and beyond? What books have you read on the subject?
quote:
But further I would like to know: how do you reconcil groups that believe differently about Jesus, yet both claim to be Christians (for instance, as I have stated before, evangelicals and Jehovah Witnesses?)
Probably the same way you reconcile groups that believe differently about God, yet both claim to be Theists.
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/30/2004 5:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Chris: I do not reconcil different views on God. I have already expressed my view that those who do not believe in one God, three persons are not Christians. My question to you is how do you reconcil it? Sure there are people who believe in different gods who are theists, what does that have to do with the question that I am addressing to you? I am not talking about theists, but Christians? How do you reconcil calling people who have differing views on Jesus Christian?
My point is simply that unless you know exactly who the true God is, how can you proclaim him? I think that is a pretty reasonable question.
I am not dodging: we know the infinite because God has revealed himself. That is why we can proclaim who God is. Because he has revealed himself to us. That is why a person can know exactly who God is. I am not sure why this is such a big deal with you. Do you not confess that God wants to have a relationship with you? DO you not know who your relationship is with? Or does God deceive?
AS someone once said, we can apprehend what God has said even if we don't fully comprehend what he has said. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 4/30/2004 6:02 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Chris: I do not reconcil different views on God. I have already expressed my view that those who do not believe in one God, three persons are not Christians. My question to you is how do you reconcil it?
If you feel no need to reconcile different views of God, why should I feel a need to reconcile different views of Christ?
quote:
Sure there are people who believe in different gods who are theists, what does that have to do with the question that I am addressing to you?
It's called argument by analogy. If people who have different views of God can all be theists, there is no apparent reason why people who have different views of Christ can't all be Christians.
quote:
How do you reconcil calling people who have differing views on Jesus Christian?
Asked and answered. (See above.)
quote:
My point is simply that unless you know exactly who the true God is, how can you proclaim him? I think that is a pretty reasonable question.
In my opinion, that isn't a reasonable question; it's a non sequitur. In fact, it reminds me of Pink Floyd's "If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding?" There's no intrinsic reason why consumption of meat should be a prerequisite for consumption of pudding, and there's no intrinsic reason why a finite being would need to undertake the impossible task of exactly comprehending an infinite being before undertaking the possible task of proclaiming Him.
quote:
I am not dodging: we know the infinite because God has revealed himself.
But in order for you to know Him exactly, He would have had to reveal Himself in completeness (and you would have had to comprehend that completeness). People who sincerely believe that God has revealed Himself in completeness to them, don't post complaints on bulletin boards about God being insufficiently clear about His nature (unless they're very, very confused).
"I believe that, in the present divided state of Christendom, those who are at the heart of each division are all closer to one another than those who are at the fringes. I would even carry this beyond the borders of Christianity: how much more one has in common with a real Jew or Muslim than with a wretched liberalising, occidentalised specimen of the same categories."
(C.S. Lewis to Mary Willis Shelburne, November 10, 1952.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/30/2004 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | No, Chris, they cannot. You are comparing different catagories. Are you really trying to tell me that say, for instance, if a person says that Jesus is the devil or just a good man or a ghost or any other view on Christ that they all can be called a Christian, simply because they have a view of Christ? It seems that you simply do not want to actually take a stand as to who Christ was. You always make a statement and then say, something to the effect that people can be saved if they disagree with you.
Let me try again (plainly): Evangelicals believe Jesus is the Second part of the trinity. Jehovah Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity at all, but believe only the Father is god, that the son is a created being and the spirit is an active force. How can these two be Christians? Did not God reveal himself in one way or the other? Does God disceive? How are these two reconcilled in your view?
I would think you would want to reconcil differing views when the views are opposing views of Christ, particularly if you believe God has actually revealed himself in a certain way and does not lie.
Chris: I am simply trying to understand how you can call two groups Christian who fundamentally disagree over who Jesus is. It would seem to me that this would be a fundamental contradiction and it would make God a deceiver. | | Back to Top | | |
| 68 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:06 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|