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

Off The Deep End

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

  • #16
    "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it." (Mark 8:35).

    "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears." (Acts 20:31).

    These, and many other biblical admonishments bespeak of radical transformation and radical ways of living. Venturing out into this evil age in the power of the Spirit with the glory of God in view will seemingly result in detachment and disengagement with a large bulk of the way of the world and would perhaps surpass any cult in perceived bizarreness.

    A healthy dose of secularism and being consumed with this world seems to prevent the above from happening in the lives of believers. Now, I don't think this is the result of said believer's necessarily loving their lives or loving this evil age, but rather, there is a perceived unspoken assumption that if we literally live as the bible dictates, we will go practically insane and be functioning in a subjective la-la-land with very little objective justification to continue along such a path of resistance; indeed, all those miracle stories in the bible are nice to read and we desperately try and believe them with the best of our abilities, but my goodness, clearly such things don't happen today, and why that is, well, let's not go there...indeed it's far safer to get lost in some theological issue and continue to play little head games so we don't have to deal with this obvious disconnect. Now, I don't mean to speak for all believers with the above, but I think we must honestly ask ourselves, does the above ring true to an extent in my own life?

    "when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8).
    Last edited by Scrawly; 07-13-2015, 02:47 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
      but rather, there is a perceived unspoken assumption that if we literally live as the bible dictates, we will go practically insane and be functioning in a subjective la-la-land with very little objective justification to continue along such a path of resistance
      I'm sorry but I don't understand what you're saying here...
      "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


      • #18
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        Erasmus was a former priest, but I'm more interested in your support for Luther here. Do you think he was correct in identifying any particular pope or the papacy in general as in some true sense a/the Antichrist?
        No, but in the 16th Cent context it's not unexpected. You suggested Erasmus as showing an alternative approach. But Erasmus chose not to take any political actions. His writings were, of course, very helpful, but he didn't engage in the way Luther did. I think Luther was right in his basic actions but his rhetoric was over the top by modern standards.

        However over-the-top rhetoric seems to be characteristic of many historical periods. Look at the language used by the Ecumenical Councils referring to people whose theology they thought was off. Completely unjustified attacks on the personal integrity of opponents was common until the 20th Cent even for scholars, and it continues today outside communities with a strong commitment to objectivity.

        I wish Luther hadn't done that, but it's unfair to criticize him.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by hedrick View Post
          No, but in the 16th Cent context it's not unexpected. You suggested Erasmus as showing an alternative approach. But Erasmus chose not to take any political actions. His writings were, of course, very helpful, but he didn't engage in the way Luther did. I think Luther was right in his basic actions but his rhetoric was over the top by modern standards.

          However over-the-top rhetoric seems to be characteristic of many historical periods. Look at the language used by the Ecumenical Councils referring to people whose theology they thought was off. Completely unjustified attacks on the personal integrity of opponents was common until the 20th Cent even for scholars, and it continues today outside communities with a strong commitment to objectivity.

          I wish Luther hadn't done that, but it's unfair to criticize him.
          Do you think Luther's identification of the pope and others as the antichrist or other figures from the book of Revelation was merely rhetorical and did not represent his actual beliefs?
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Do you think Luther's identification of the pope and others as the antichrist or other figures from the book of Revelation was merely rhetorical and did not represent his actual beliefs?
            Luther was hardly unique in this, many of the Protestant reformers such as John Calvin and John Knox readily identified the Roman Papacy as being the Antichrist but AFAICT Catholic apologists of the time repaid that rhetoric in kind and identified Martin Luther as the Antichrist and "the Beast" of Revelation and said that Calvin was the false prophet.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              Do you think Luther's identification of the pope and others as the antichrist or other figures from the book of Revelation was merely rhetorical and did not represent his actual beliefs?
              Of course he did. In some sense he wasn't even wrong. It was someone sitting at the head of the Church whose goals were very different from Christ's. And heaven knows there are plenty of Christians today who think events less serious than those in his time indicate the coming of the end times. I'm sure they believe it too.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Luther was hardly unique in this, many of the Protestant reformers such as John Calvin and John Knox readily identified the Roman Papacy as being the Antichrist but AFAICT Catholic apologists of the time repaid that rhetoric in kind and identified Martin Luther as the Antichrist and "the Beast" of Revelation and said that Calvin was the false prophet.
                Good point. So it was not just rhetoric but Luther's, Calvin's and Knox's actual beliefs; is that what you're saying? I know many Catholics believed Luther and the reformers to be truly evil and the tool of Satan, but did they generally believe that they were living in the end times on account of Luther's and Calvin's appearance as the Antichrist and false prophet?
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                  Of course he did. In some sense he wasn't even wrong. It was someone sitting at the head of the Church whose goals were very different from Christ's. And heaven knows there are plenty of Christians today who think events less serious than those in his time indicate the coming of the end times. I'm sure they believe it too.
                  He certainly was not wrong about many evils in the church, including among the popes and hierarchy, etc, but he was wrong about this being a sign of the end times. I don't know if many Catholics also went down this apocalyptic road.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    You might find this interesting: http://ww.bibelschule.info/streaming...rt-1_21898.pdf
                    Or this: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...-of-world.html
                    It wasn't just inflated rhetoric. It was a part of his theology. He thought in terms that today we might call "spiritual warfare." Think of "A Mighty Fortress." I think he meant those words a lot more literally than most modern Protestants who sing the hymn.

                    It's certainly not my viewpoint, but it's a traditional Christian approach. In a period that still remembered three popes anathematizing each other, popes in conflict with councils, and unprecedented corruption in the Church, it's easy to see why someone might find it attractive.

                    In many ways Luther was the last great medieval theologian. His worldview was quite different than mine, which is formed by the Enlightenment. He saw the world as a place where God and Satan were active in everyday affairs. The Papacy wasn't just the victim of normal human sin, but represented Satan's attack and on the Church, and at least a temporary victory. You can make a good argument that parts of the NT take a similar view. He was obviously wrong about the End coming soon. But for people whose outlook is a bit more supernatural than mine, it doesn't invalidate the concept that the corruptioin and heresy in the Church represented Satan's activity. In this context, one might describe the Pope as the anti-Christ, although not the anti-Christ of the End. In that context, Luther might have been wrong about chronology, but not about what was really going on.

                    This approach is alive and well in today's Church. Just look at the number of people who are talking about the moral destruction of the West, and seeing this as the apostasy foreseen in the NT, with the end swiftly coming.
                    Last edited by hedrick; 07-13-2015, 09:57 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                      IMHO, one key to keeping yourself sane is to keep "fundamental theology", that which is essential to the Christian faith, distinct from "disputable theology", that which isn't.

                      So, trinity; incarnation; virgin birth; Christ's death, burial, and resurrection resulting in propitiation; justification/salvation through faith; and bodily resurrection are fundamental. The rest is disputable.
                      That's good advice.


                      Although we might end up getting crazy over what the fundamentals are....
                      ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                        IMHO, one key to keeping yourself sane is to keep "fundamental theology", that which is essential to the Christian faith, distinct from "disputable theology", that which isn't.

                        So, trinity; incarnation; virgin birth; Christ's death, burial, and resurrection resulting in propitiation; justification/salvation through faith; and bodily resurrection are fundamental. The rest is disputable.
                        If those are the fundamentals then I don't get why some Christians around here use the term "fundie" so disparagingly to describe other Christians not of their ilk.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by themuzicman View Post
                          IMHO, one key to keeping yourself sane is to keep "fundamental theology", that which is essential to the Christian faith, distinct from "disputable theology", that which isn't.

                          So, trinity; incarnation; virgin birth; Christ's death, burial, and resurrection resulting in propitiation; justification/salvation through faith; and bodily resurrection are fundamental. The rest is disputable.
                          Originally posted by seanD View Post
                          If those are the fundamentals then I don't get why some Christians around here use the term "fundie" so disparagingly to describe other Christians not of their ilk.
                          At least in Catholic and some larger academic theological circles, fundamental theology is not merely a list of the fundamentals (which is the origin of the initially positive connotation of the term 'Fundamentalism'), but rather a matter of genuine theological inquiry and debate over how some fundamental theological concepts, eg, revelation, should best be understood theologically. There is plenty of room for disagreement and debate about how these fundamental concepts should best be understood. To continue with the example of revelation, is it best understood as propositional, ie, literal statements taken from the bible or church councils, or personal, ie, Jesus Christ is the supreme personal revelation of who God is as human, acting within human history, to whom the scriptures and counciliar statements attest within a human historical context.
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I think the fundamentals may be much broader than those general beliefs. I doubt there are very many churches out there that would disagree with those fundamentals (with the possible exception of the virgin birth), so something needs to explain why the church is waning and, most notably, why divine manifestations, supernatural interactions and revelations aren't at all on par with the church of the first century.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                              You might find this interesting: http://ww.bibelschule.info/streaming...rt-1_21898.pdf
                              Or this: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...-of-world.html
                              It wasn't just inflated rhetoric. It was a part of his theology. He thought in terms that today we might call "spiritual warfare." Think of "A Mighty Fortress." I think he meant those words a lot more literally than most modern Protestants who sing the hymn.

                              It's certainly not my viewpoint, but it's a traditional Christian approach. In a period that still remembered three popes anathematizing each other, popes in conflict with councils, and unprecedented corruption in the Church, it's easy to see why someone might find it attractive.

                              In many ways Luther was the last great medieval theologian. His worldview was quite different than mine, which is formed by the Enlightenment. He saw the world as a place where God and Satan were active in everyday affairs. The Papacy wasn't just the victim of normal human sin, but represented Satan's attack and on the Church, and at least a temporary victory. You can make a good argument that parts of the NT take a similar view. He was obviously wrong about the End coming soon. But for people whose outlook is a bit more supernatural than mine, it doesn't invalidate the concept that the corruptioin and heresy in the Church represented Satan's activity. In this context, one might describe the Pope as the anti-Christ, although not the anti-Christ of the End. In that context, Luther might have been wrong about chronology, but not about what was really going on.

                              This approach is alive and well in today's Church. Just look at the number of people who are talking about the moral destruction of the West, and seeing this as the apostasy foreseen in the NT, with the end swiftly coming.
                              Thanks for the links, I read them last night and now see that you subsequently added to your post. I understand this perspective and pretty much agree with you. Except I don't think a good argument can be made that parts of the New Testament were addressing the papacy as Satan's attack on the church. I think the papacy actually developed much more slowly, 'though some of the roots of this later development can be seen in Matthew's gospel, but there these roots of what would eventually become the papacy are seen positively.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                Good point. So it was not just rhetoric but Luther's, Calvin's and Knox's actual beliefs; is that what you're saying? I know many Catholics believed Luther and the reformers to be truly evil and the tool of Satan, but did they generally believe that they were living in the end times on account of Luther's and Calvin's appearance as the Antichrist and false prophet?
                                Perhaps a mixture of both. If the Seven Day Adventist historian LeRoy Edwin Froom is correct referring to the pope as the Antichrist was something that had been going on for centuries in central Europe. He cites, for instance, the Prince-Archbishop of Salzburg, Austria Eberhard II von Truchsees as saying at a synod of bishops held at Regensburg, Germany around 1240 that the people of his day were "accustomed" to calling the pope Antichrist.

                                And I think many of the Catholics indeed thought that the Reformers were evidence of the coming of the End Times in that in their view they were sundering the body of Christ.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
                                35 responses
                                166 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
                                4 responses
                                49 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
                                10 responses
                                120 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
                                14 responses
                                72 views
                                3 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
                                13 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X