Announcement

Collapse

Christianity 201 Guidelines

orthodox Christians only.

Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.

The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

God is Love

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

    One of my biggest beefs is "we're all God's children" - usually a lead in to invalidate the need for Salvation.
    Yes. I suspect this is said by the God is Love crowd. I think the more correct statement would be "We are all God's creation in need of repair."
    "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

    "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post

      I haven't even run into it online. So I think I have to politely disagree with TM earlier.
      That's file. I have been known to be umm, err, wrong on occasion. It doesn't seem to be a common position. I do seem to remember reading something to the effect of if the Resurrection was proved false, conservatives would walk away from Christianity altogether while liberals would preach, it doesn't matter, Jesus lives in our hearts. Wish I could remember where. Maybe something by C. S. Lewis?
      "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6

      "Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom

      Comment


      • #33
        Universalism sounds pretty bad when I think about it. Since not everyone will want to submit to Jesus, how do the universalists think they would be saved? If I ttapped a wild racoon and kept it in captivity, it won't think it's been saved. You can't tame something that doesn't want anything to do with you! Pretty sure there are some who would veiw the inhabitants of the New Jerusalem as living in captivity while they live in the wild like feral cats. Never mind that the gates are always open. Yes, I just compared humans to cats.
        If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

        Comment


        • #34


          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

          One of my biggest beefs is "we're all God's children" - usually a lead in to invalidate the need for Salvation.
          So this is interesting. 1 John 3 does explicitly say that one who does not keep God's commands is not God's child. However, in Acts 17:28, while Paul addresses a pagan audience, Paul approvingly quotes a pagan poet who says that all humans are God's children. So at first glance, the statement could be used for evangelism without opening the door to universalism.

          I'd have to think more about this! My initial thoughts are that maybe they're saying different things. A lot of what John says in 1 John is deep but not strictly literal. He happily "contradicts" himself within the same book, like by saying that nobody who has seen God sins, yet that at the same time, acknowledging two chapters later that believes still do sin. So I don't think that he's necessarily making a deep ontological statement there.

          I'm not trying to get into a debate here, I just think this is interesting.
          Last edited by KingsGambit; 03-27-2024, 06:05 AM.
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post

            That's file. I have been known to be umm, err, wrong on occasion. It doesn't seem to be a common position. I do seem to remember reading something to the effect of if the Resurrection was proved false, conservatives would walk away from Christianity altogether while liberals would preach, it doesn't matter, Jesus lives in our hearts. Wish I could remember where. Maybe something by C. S. Lewis?
            If push came to shove and the issue came up, I think you're right that a lot of people would waffle on it.

            I was thinking, similarly, about the Bible college professor a few years ago who said that the US government should nuke Mecca because that would invalidate a Koran prophecy that Mecca would always be safe, and every single Muslim would deconvert. And how it seemed obvious that this wouldn't produce his desired result.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post



              So this is interesting. 1 John 3 does explicitly say that one who does not keep God's commands is not God's child. However, in Acts 17:28, while Paul addresses a pagan audience, Paul approvingly quotes a pagan poet who says that all humans are God's children. So at first glance, the statement could be used for evangelism without opening the door to universalism.

              I'd have to think more about this! My initial thoughts are that maybe they're saying different things. A lot of what John says in 1 John is deep but not strictly literal. He happily "contradicts" himself within the same book, like by saying that nobody who has seen God sins, yet that at the same time, acknowledging two chapters later that believes still do sin. So I don't think that he's necessarily making a deep ontological statement there.

              I'm not trying to get into a debate here, I just think this is interesting.
              Interesting - I'll add that to my "give it another look" list.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment

              Related Threads

              Collapse

              Topics Statistics Last Post
              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 04-14-2024, 04:34 PM
              4 responses
              35 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Christianbookworm  
              Started by One Bad Pig, 04-10-2024, 12:35 PM
              0 responses
              27 views
              1 like
              Last Post One Bad Pig  
              Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
              35 responses
              179 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Cow Poke  
              Started by NorrinRadd, 04-13-2022, 12:54 AM
              45 responses
              339 views
              0 likes
              Last Post NorrinRadd  
              Started by Zymologist, 07-09-2019, 01:18 PM
              353 responses
              17,216 views
              0 likes
              Last Post Cerebrum123  
              Working...
              X