Date: Wed Mar 08 2006 - 23:15:36 EST
Sorry I'm so late responding .. I just got in a couple of hours ago.
At 10:35 AM 3/7/2006, Ted Davis wrote:
Ted replies: ...you ducked my point, Janice. The paragraph about
essential Christian beliefs through the centuries leaves out all
these Christians whom you and I both think are Christians. ..."
@@ Not so. All right thinking (orthodox) Christians agree on the
essentials.
"Central (essential) doctrines" of the Christian faith are those
doctrines that make the Christian faith Christian and not something else.
The meaning of the expression "Christian faith" is not like a wax
nose, which can be twisted to mean whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
The Christian faith is a definite system of beliefs with definite
content (<http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?jude+1:3>Jude 3
Off-site Link
)
Certain Christian doctrines constitute the core of the faith. Central
doctrines include the
<http://www.apologeticsindex.org/t10.html>Trinity, the deity of
<http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j20.html>Christ, the bodily
resurrection, the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and
<http://www.apologeticsindex.org/s12.html>salvation by grace through faith.
These doctrines so comprise the essence of the Christian faith that
to remove any of them is to make the belief system non-Christian.
Scripture teaches that the beliefs mentioned above are of central
importance (e.g., <http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?matthew+28:19>Matt. 28:19
Off-site Link
; <http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?john+8:24>John 8:24
Off-site Link
; <http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?1+corinthians+15>1 Cor. 15
Off-site Link
; <http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?ephesians+2:8-10>Eph. 2:8-10
Off-site Link
).
Because these central doctrines define the character of Christianity,
one cannot be saved and deny these.
Central doctrines should not be confused with peripheral issues,
about which Christians may legitimately disagree.
Peripheral (i.e. non-essential) doctrines include such issues as the
timing of the tribulation, the method of baptism, or the structure of
church government. For example, one can be wrong about the identity
of "the spirits in prison"
<http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?1+peter+3:19>1 Peter 3:19
Off-site Link
) or about the timing of the rapture and still go to heaven, but one
cannot deny salvation by grace or the deity of Christ
(<http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?john+8:24>John 8:24
Off-site Link
) and be saved.
All Christian denominations -- whether
<http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c16.html>Roman Catholic,
<http://www.apologeticsindex.org/o06.html>Eastern Orthodox, or
<http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p11.html>Protestant -- agree on the
essential core.
The relatively minor disagreements between genuinely Christian
<http://www.apologeticsindex.org/d10.html>denominations, then, cannot
be used to argue that there is no objectively recognized core of
fundamental doctrine which constitutes the Christian faith.
[snip] http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h27.html
Ted continues: And, what of those many modern Christians who baptize
only adult (or adolescent) believers by immersion, upon confession of
faith? Surely that is an aberration from tradition; surely the vast
majority of Christians past and present baptize infants as well as
adults. My suspicion is that on this one you and I are in the
majority, but folks like Mr Falwell and many contemporary
evangelicals do otherwise. What of them? Are they also being
intellectually dishonest? I suspect not.
@@ You confuse the central /core doctrines with the peripheral
doctrines. See above.
Ted continues: Now let me come back to the Eucharist issue, Janice,
just to focus attention more on the problems that the author of the
article you posted did not bring into the issue. Observing the
Eucharist only as a "remembrance" is the Anabaptist view. ..."
@@ At the last supper, Jesus speaks of a spiritual reality by using
physical objects.
Jesus, in person, is sitting at the table with his disciples. He
held up some bread and said, "This is my body".
The bread was in his hand - it was distinct from his body, and that
was quite evident to his apostles. They knew he was speaking symbolically.
Likewise when When Jesus said, "This cup which is poured out for you
is the new covenant in my blood", they certainly knew that
he didn't mean that the cup was actually the new covenant, but that
the cup represented the new covenant.
When Jesus said, "I am the true vine", or "I am the door" or, "I am
the bread which came down from heaven", they knew he didn't mean it
in a literal way.
"...so he who feeds on me [the Word of God] will live ... he who
eats this bread (the living Word) will live forever. The WORDS I
speak to you are spirit and they are life. ... I am the bread of life".
"Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst
of them." Who would be foolish enough to think that the only place
where Jesus is not to be found is the Lord's Supper ? Who do you know
that holds to a doctrine of "the real absence"? :)
Jesus has appeared once for all to put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself. "Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly .. " "It is
finished" = final and complete. His sacrifice was accepted by his
Father and from that time on, there is "no condemnation" remaining
for us. (The purpose of the repeated sacrifices of the OT was to be
"a reminder of sin year after year".)
Ted continues: Anabaptists are free-will Christians, janice; that is,
they are "Arminian" in theology though that term is applied
anachronistically since they precede Jacob Hermensen (ie., Arminius)
by a century, and we already know what you think about
Arminians. I'm not sure you really appreciate the radical nature of
this view of the Eucharist, relative to historic Christianity. ..."
@@ Scripture came before the Anabaptists. (See above)
Ted continues: "..It is probably good to keep in mind that many
Eastern Orthodox believers, ie, many members of the church with the
best claim to the apostolic succession ... My point in going into all
of this is not to defend or attack any view on the Eucharist or free
will. My point (again) is to say how deep these waters are, before
we jump too quickly into them. Before taking a dive, it might be
best first to become more familiar with the nature of some past and
present theological debates, relative to foundational issues in
Christian faith, and to become much more familiar with the
theological side of modern religion/science conversation. This, I
dare say, is where many have hit their heads on underwater rocks:
either they can't articulate accurately the views of many
contemporary voices in that conversation, b/c they have not taken
time to study their positions (perhaps on the assumption that they
have nothing worth saying), and therefore have missed very
significant subtleties (I know that "very significant subtleties"
sounds like quibbling over minnows, but often it is not, for
"heretics" have been burned for misplaced modifiers); or they have
defined orthodoxy in such a way that the truth can't fit into their
box. This is one of those cases where casual swimmers often drown. ~ ted
@@ The apostles had the *unique authority* to found and govern the
early church, and they could speak and write the words of God. Many
of their written words became the NT Scripture. In order to qualify
as an apostle someone had to have seen Christ with his own eyes after
he rose from the dead **and** had to have been specifically
installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle. In place of living
apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have
instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT. Those
New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute
authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled
by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church.
Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or
"physical descent" from the
apostles. http://www.freerepublic.com/~matchettpi/
I believe this:
The purpose of creation is to glorify God.
The first question of the Westminster Catechism, which was issued
just months after the Westminster Confession of Faith was published in 1646:
Question: What is the chief and highest end of man?
Answer: Man's chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to
enjoy him forever.
On the other hand, the Eastern Orthodox believe this:
Theosis is held by the Orthodox to be the chief end of
Humanity. Humans were created for deification
Eastern Orthodox theological thought regarding humanity, sin, and
redemption is closely linked and revolves around the concept of theosis.
The doctrine is also called deification or divinization, and though
it is a hallmark of Eastern Orthodoxy it is shrouded in mystery which
the Orthodox are hesitant to analyze.
Simply put, theosis means being deified or becoming like God.
Theosis connotes participation in God's nature while maintaining a
distinct human nature. Orthodox thinkers consistently deny that
theosis is a pantheistic worldview on the grounds that theosis does
not involve the destruction of the human nature as part of the process.
Eastern Orthodoxy's assertion that humanity's ultimate goal is
theosis, or participation in the Divine life, has informed and shaped
their doctrine of the Fall. Their understanding of original sin
differs from that of Western theologians in that Adam and Eve are not
responsible, through their sin, for universal guilt, but for
universal mortality.
Adam's personal sin did not bring condemnation upon all people, it
brought death upon all people. The experience of mortality leads
otherwise guiltless individuals to sinful acts [12], but the Orthodox
maintain that each person's sin is the result of his or her own
choice and not the choice of Adam [13].
Given this idea that humanity's basic problem is mortality, the
Orthodox view of redemption is much broader than that of the Western
church. Western theological tradition emphasizes the judicial aspect
of salvation, asserting that in salvation, God is primarily concerned
with the remission of sin [14]. The Orthodox view is that the gospel
is not primarily the solution to man's problem with personal sin. It
is God's provision of divine life in Christ, the beginning of theosis.
A residual benefit of beginning the process of deification is the
remission of sins. Baptism is the means by which the believer enters
into this new life. John Meyendorff summarizes the idea of redemption
in Eastern Orthodox theology well. He says,
Communion in the risen body of Christ; participation in divine life;
sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates the
humanity and restores it to its "natural" state, rather than
justification, or remission of inherited guilt--these are at the
center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel [15].
end excerpt An Overview of Eastern
Orthodoxy http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/orthdox3.html
by Susan C. Moeller
Which of the two views do you think Eve would be attracted to? :)
~ Janice
