Orthodoxy: Definitions and Exclusionary Clauses. Oh, and gra

[Timothy Bonney]

The pursuit of Truth is dynamic; it cannot be contained by human creeds, and no matter how hard we strive to understand and/or live it, we never fully arrive -- so I would personally contend. There is a humility in recognizing our limited place and understanding in God's vast creation.

I'd rather say that we cannot fully understand it in any vehicle because we are human. But I'm not willing to say that there isn't truth to be found and that we can't name some of it. I see the danger of anti-creedalism being that it can become an unrepentant individualism whereby I get to decide the truth by myself. I see that as one of the great sins of Adam and Eve.

A lot of understandings for United Methodists do change over time so the denomination is careful to limit what is considered "official" doctrine. That is why I keep using the "foundation" metaphor.

[Bruce Gourley]

The pursuit of Truth is dynamic; it cannot be contained by human creeds, and no matter how hard we strive to understand and/or live it, we never fully arrive -- so I would personally contend. There is a humility in recognizing our limited place and understanding in God's vast creation.

I'd rather say that we cannot fully understand it in any vehicle because we are human. But I'm not willing to say that there isn't truth to be found and that we can't name some of it. I see the danger of anti-creedalism being that it can become an unrepentant individualism whereby I get to decide the truth by myself. I see that as one of the great sins of Adam and Eve.

A lot of understandings for United Methodists do change over time so the denomination is careful to limit what is considered "official" doctrine. That is why I keep using the "foundation" metaphor.

Just as a reminder, if we did not have persons courageous enough to stand up in individualism against prescribed status quo, we would be in a sorry mess. Think Luther, Helwys, Williams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr. for starters.

Yet no one really decides truth by themselves. We are influenced, directly and indirectly, by people, environment, circumstances. From thence our individualism is shaped and molded, and plays out on a scale larger than ourselves, within a world larger than ourselves. What we do with who we are is another issue.

[Timothy Bonney]

Just as a reminder, if we did not have persons courageous enough to stand up in individualism against prescribed status quo, we would be in a sorry mess. Think Luther, Helwys, Williams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr. for starters.

Yet no one really decides truth by themselves. We are influenced, directly and indirectly, by people, environment, circumstances. From thence our individualism is shaped and molded, and plays out on a scale larger than ourselves, within a world larger than ourselves. What we do with who we are is another issue.

I agree. But where I have a problem is when the idea that "my freedom" becomes the ultimate doctrinal standard rather than my obedience to revealed truth. IMHO, being a Christian is much more about discipline than it is about freedom. We can all run around lawlessly doing whatever please ourselves. Big deal. Unbelievers can do that too. Seeking to grow in grace and be more like Jesus is a lot harder.

[Bruce Gourley]

Just as a reminder, if we did not have persons courageous enough to stand up in individualism against prescribed status quo, we would be in a sorry mess. Think Luther, Helwys, Williams, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Martin Luther King Jr. for starters.

Yet no one really decides truth by themselves. We are influenced, directly and indirectly, by people, environment, circumstances. From thence our individualism is shaped and molded, and plays out on a scale larger than ourselves, within a world larger than ourselves. What we do with who we are is another issue.

I agree. But where I have a problem is when the idea that "my freedom" becomes the ultimate doctrinal standard rather than my obedience to revealed truth. IMHO, being a Christian is much more about discipline than it is about freedom. We can all run around lawlessly doing whatever please ourselves. Big deal. Unbelievers can do that too. Seeking to grow in grace and be more like Jesus is a lot harder.

Yes, individualism can become excessive. Then again, so can orthodoxy.

But seeking to "grow in grace and be more like Jesus," that's good theology!

[Gene Scarborough]

Bruce & Timothy---

A while back I think Timothy noted few are joining the discussion and he would like to know what we believe.

I think you can boil most things down to Romans 10:9 = Believe in your heart / confess with your mouth that Jesus is God's Son and was raised from the grave (general statement from Paul not exactly quoted by me).

As usual, when people are vying for leadership, they argue and debate over minutia. It gets to be a royal mess. Finally a Church Council was called to settle the matter and the grand Apostles Creed was conceived as a mediation statement of faith. The "descended into Hell" part has always bothered me as speculation over actual Gospel statement. That part came in Acts, I believe. Someone obviously had to be included to have that one!

As a born and bred Baptist, I have problems with any Creed as a man-made object of exclusion. The founders of Baptists had "confessions" as opposed to a "creed." We have "ordinances" over "sacriments." The Roman Catholic Church had put judgement into the hands of the local Priest under the "infallable" rulings of the Pope. Even that changed as Popes changed and the never-ending battle for suprimacy and control went on. The whip of submission was wielded with Excommunication as a threat if you did not comply.

As it is well-cited, Baptists preferred a democratic approach to their kind of religion. Democracy is always messy and we are seeing that more than clearly in this political election and the Supreme Court consideration going on now with nationalized health care. Who the heck really know where that will land. Meanwhile, many Americans can't afford health insurance and have problems with getting what the insured do since modern medicine is about money as much as the Hippocratic Oath.

I go back to Jesus and his simplification of the law down to 2 basics. In addition, Jesus had no respect nor subservience to the Pharisees of his day who were running the religious show. They found a way to kill him, but God raised him from the dead!

[Gene Scarborough]

The NCCBF website is now showing Bill Leonard's excellent session and I encourage all to look at it.

I emailed and invited him here, but he is a most busy man!

[Timothy Bonney]

Bruce & Timothy---

I think you can boil most things down to Romans 10:9 = Believe in your heart / confess with your mouth that Jesus is God's Son and was raised from the grave (general statement from Paul not exactly quoted by me).

As a born and bred Baptist, I have problems with any Creed as a man-made object of exclusion.

So Gene you are comfortable with quoting a scripture which requires belief in Jesus as the son of God and belief in the resurrection but you are uncomfortable writing the same ideas down on a list on another piece of paper (which I might call a creed) and telling someone that if you don't believe in Jesus you aren't a Christian?

That's a surprise to me. Would telling people that they have to believe in Jesus as the Son of God and His resurrection to be a Christian be excluding them? Or it is just telling people what it means to be a Christian?

[Gene Scarborough]

You share the story from the Bible, then people decide whether to believe in the basics or not = simple faith without strange words and notions few understand!

[Timothy Bonney]

You share the story from the Bible, then people decide whether to believe in the basics or not = simple faith without strange words and notions few understand!

So when you preach Gene you just stand up and read the Bible, no commentary? No illustrations? No explanations.

Y'all seem to be jumping through a lot of hopes to prove you don't have to believe anything or that if you do your aren't responsible to help people figure out what that is.

[Gene Scarborough]

NO, Timothy----

When I preach the Bible I tell it like it is---and don't preach my doubts even though I have some!

I don't think people give a crap about all this intellectual stuff. They just need enough faith and encouragement to make it to next Sunday!

[Timothy Bonney]

NO, Timothy----

When I preach the Bible I tell it like it is---and don't preach my doubts even though I have some!

I don't think people give a crap about all this intellectual stuff. They just need enough faith and encouragement to make it to next Sunday!

Intellectual stuff? I don't think there is anything particularly difficult to understand about the basics of the faith. I think we underestimate people. People never get a taste for steak if you only give them milk.

Most of the folks at my church are college graduates or are in college etc. If they can handle that they can handle a little theology.

[Haruo]

I think you can boil most things down to Romans 10:9...

So Gene you are comfortable with quoting a scripture which requires belief in Jesus as the son of God and belief in the resurrection but you are uncomfortable writing the same ideas down on a list on another piece of paper (which I might call a creed) and telling someone that if you don't believe in Jesus you aren't a Christian?

That's a surprise to me. Would telling people that they have to believe in Jesus as the Son of God and His resurrection to be a Christian be excluding them? Or it is just telling people what it means to be a Christian?

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus*, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Just taking this one verse (which is of course not a full statement of Paul's theology), I don't see where it says anything about "Son of God", nor about Jesus being God. I also don't see where it says this is the only way one can be saved, i.e. that those who through ignorance, stupidity, mental illness, pride, sectarian upbringing, or whatever do not so confess and so believe shall not be saved. Nor do I see anything about "being a Christian", pro or con, in this verse. Those of you who do see these things, may I ask, where??

*this is what my online authority says KJV reads, but I always thought it said "that Jesus is Lord" rather than "the Lord Jesus"; either way, it doesn't affect my question to y'all...

[Timothy Bonney]

Based all on one verse Hauro? LOL

[John Sneed]

I think we are getting somewhere if only in the negative. I think some are still arguing that there is no doctrine at all that defines Baptists (or Christians for that matter). I have seen some posts that IMPLY that some here do not believe in the deity of Christ, or the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, among other things. I think we are going to see this discussion soon come to the place where people are uncomfortable with the things people deny believing. From that point onward, we will start to see what people think it takes to be a Christian and a Baptist.

[Haruo]

Well, Gene said he thought "most things" could be "boiled down" to that verse, which he then misquoted (and admitted it was a paraphrase). But then you came back with a reply that involved the same interpolation (Son of God) and then went on to equate, it sounded like, "do x+y and you shall be saved" to "fail to do x+y and you're not a Christian", which sounds to me like equating apples to pomegranates, and then defining them as watermelons.

[Haruo]

I think we are getting somewhere if only in the negative. I think some are still arguing that there is no doctrine at all that defines Baptists (or Christians for that matter). I have seen some posts that IMPLY that some here do not believe in the deity of Christ, or the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, among other things. I think we are going to see this discussion soon come to the place where people are uncomfortable with the things people deny believing. From that point onward, we will start to see what people think it takes to be a Christian and a Baptist.

Well, I for one don't see any problem with saying that some Christians do not view Jesus as divine in the same sense in which God is divine. I think the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation is on God's part (God exclusively used Jesus, if you will, to negate sin's blood debt). Quite a separate matter from who "calls upon Jesus' name" or who "believes in Jesus" or who "trusts in Jesus" or who does something else that God sovereignly decides to account as faith in Jesus (just as God accounted Abraham's faith as righteousness),,, I don't think theological propositions will get me into heaven (though they may suffice in your case).

[Timothy Bonney]

I think we are getting somewhere if only in the negative. I think some are still arguing that there is no doctrine at all that defines Baptists (or Christians for that matter). I have seen some posts that IMPLY that some here do not believe in the deity of Christ, or the exclusivity of Christ for salvation, among other things. I think we are going to see this discussion soon come to the place where people are uncomfortable with the things people deny believing. From that point onward, we will start to see what people think it takes to be a Christian and a Baptist.

John, would you like to participate in the discussion. Even when I'm agreeing with you pronouncements from on high aren't that helpful.

[Timothy Bonney]

Well, I for one don't see any problem with saying that some Christians do not view Jesus as divine in the same sense in which God is divine. I think the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation is on God's part (God exclusively used Jesus, if you will, to negate sin's blood debt). Quite a separate matter from who "calls upon Jesus' name" or who "believes in Jesus" or who "trusts in Jesus" or who does something else that God sovereignly decides to account as faith in Jesus (just as God accounted Abraham's faith as righteousness),,, I don't think theological propositions will get me into heaven (though they may suffice in your case).

Hauro, the usual Christian view is that Jesus is God not separate from God as your first sentence suggests. Am I guessing your views may not be Trinitarian?

I've also said in the thread above that whom God choses to redeem is up to God. I believe the scriptures tell us that God redeems people through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And I would even say that is true if God chose to redeem someone who doesn't fit into our understanding of the faith.

Nothing in the creeds limits God's ability to save anyone God wants to save. Again, I'm talking foundational beliefs and not all that can be built on that foundation.

I also agree with you that "theological propositions" won't get you into heaven. A relationship with Jesus Christ gets you into heaven. But having a relationship means you try to get to know the one you have a relationship with. That is why the Creed says "I believe" rather than "I know God is father." Faith is the issue not intellectual assent.

[Haruo]

Well, I for one don't see any problem with saying that some Christians do not view Jesus as divine in the same sense in which God is divine. I think the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation is on God's part (God exclusively used Jesus, if you will, to negate sin's blood debt). Quite a separate matter from who "calls upon Jesus' name" or who "believes in Jesus" or who "trusts in Jesus" or who does something else that God sovereignly decides to account as faith in Jesus (just as God accounted Abraham's faith as righteousness),,, I don't think theological propositions will get me into heaven (though they may suffice in your case).

Hauro, the usual Christian view is that Jesus is God not separate from God as your first sentence suggests. Am I guessing your views may not be Trinitarian?

I've also said in the thread above that whom God choses to redeem is up to God. I believe the scriptures tell us that God redeems people through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And I would even say that is true if God chose to redeem someone who doesn't fit into our understanding of the faith.

Nothing in the creeds limits God's ability to save anyone God wants to save. Again, I'm talking foundational beliefs and not all that can be built on that foundation.

I also agree with you that "theological propositions" won't get you into heaven. A relationship with Jesus Christ gets you into heaven. But having a relationship means you try to get to know the one you have a relationship with. That is why the Creed says "I believe" rather than "I know God is father." Faith is the issue not intellectual assent.

I have no problem with Trinitarian formulations so long as they're not set up as roadblocks to salvation. My own view is that God is relational, and that the Trinity is about relationship. But as far as a dogmatic assertion that there are X number of person(s) in the "Godhead" and that to believe there are one or two more or fewer is going to keep one out of heaven, no, I think that treads heavily on God's toes. I pray with full faith to God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and/or God the Creator, Savior, Holy Ghost, and/or... but I do not believe that that formulation is uniquely salvific. It may be. But I doubt it. And I will not deny the label Christian to those who have other views. Sears, to take my favorite example. I don't think a non-Christian could have written "It Came Upon the Midnight Clear"...

[Haruo]

And Tim, I actually had John in my sights when I wrote that. (Just to clarify that what you had said earlier in the thread didn't necessarily have anything to do with what I was saying to John.)

[Timothy Bonney]

And Tim, I actually had John in my sights when I wrote that. (Just to clarify that what you had said earlier in the thread didn't necessarily have anything to do with what I was saying to John.)

Got it Hauro. That makes more sense. I do see the Trinity as relational too. But I also see the way that the Trinity relates to God's self as actually being one of the keys to what makes Christianity unique.

[Gene Scarborough]

Shall we explore another aspect of orthodoxy----what about all the people who never heard the Gospel of who approach God from a non-Christian perspective.

Is there a way to heaven outside of Christian Orthodoxy?

[John Sneed]

Gene, I started another threat to deal with the question you have asked.

I felt it was worthy of it's own discussion.

[Gene Scarborough]

It's OK by me, buddy.

[Hal Eaton]

Gene sez: Is there a way to heaven outside of Christian Orthodoxy?

John Sneed replies: Gene, I started another threat (sic) to deal with the question you have asked.

Grantsmill's numerological interpretation of prophecy started a verbal war on the subject . . .

A few psychological avenues to be explored:

The question of "Who is saved?" is really "Will I make it?" Once we believe that Salvation (and its necessary concomitant, Heaven) is a possibility, every allied question requires a judgment regarding the future of everybody we meet -- and the application to all others of our own claims to surety. Hence the accumulation of posts on such matters.

The differences are noticeable, divided between the scripture-quotes and the reasonable. There is no certainty that Biblical verses will settle the puzzle; that "God is love" does or does not guarantee Heaven for us and all our acquaintances.

None of us is willing to suggest that Death is Death, and that we need not put our faith in an eternity of singing in the Heavenly Choir.

Thus, most of our views on the subject are stressed by our own inadequacies, uncertainties,
and -- yes -- our hopes.

The solution to total bewilderment is to settle on a clear belief pattern that is neither un-scriptural nor unreasonable, then defend it to others via the pulpit, "witnessing," or . . . posting.

IMO, TIC