In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[GerhardEbersoehn]

[/font][/color]



Simple; it acknowledges the ambiguity of the relationship of Catholics (and to a lesser extent Orthodox) to Protestant Christianity, yet retains the acknowledgement that there are certainly Catholic and Orthodox Christians. I'm thinking specifically about the Catholic view of works, as an example. The Catholic view and the Protestant view are not immediately reconcilable because they are so distinct - after all, there was that whole little issue of the Reformation. As I've said before, this forum is a Protestant forum at its core, but that does not mean we must not fellowship with our brothers and sisters from traditions where there may be some level of disagreement. Preference will be given to the Protestant position in the matter (I am simply stating the nature of having a forum run by Protestants) but Catholic viewpoints have never been restricted here and won't be unless they violate our rules. (IE: Excessive denominational postings of Catholic catechisms, etc, which has been an issue here from time to time.)

Unfortunately, you've decided to take it a step further and provide your own interpretation of the issues rather than at least first seeking clarification on the matter. I do believe you've posted here since this SoF was released, and you have some 300+ posts with us in total - this alone should be indicative of what you stated being entirely untrue.

In the quote you provided about the books of the Bible, for instance, you'll kindly notice that I did not provide commentary on the Deuterocanonical books (Apocrypha). Protestants do not collectively hold these books to be inspired at the same level, if you will, of the Old and New Testaments. The door remains open to accept these as lesser inspired works as some circles of Protestantism do.



'Quite' is a very subjective word of course, but yes, I do view that we can hold to minor disagreements on an issue - I would view this as more of a semantic issue or an issue where there may be enough ambivalence to warrant restraint. Ultimately, this provision was created to fight against single issue posters - one of the major areas is admittedly the concept of "Oneness" theology that leads to modalism. Additionally, this is a case-by-case issue; we're doing our best to define a reasonable base of Christianity for orthodox discussion. We're not doing it to exclude, but we feel it our responsibility to not provide an incubator for immature (as in newly converted or young-in-the-faith) Christians to be lead astray.

You seem like a wise among the wise and older than your photo suggests.

I feel at home at your forum. God bless you and your board.

Gerhard Ebersoehn

 

[tom55]

The NIcene Creed (381) states: "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." Baptism has never forgiven sins. The Blood of Christ washes sins away, not baptismal water. Therefore the Nicene Creed is not Christian.



Doesn't Acts 2:38 and 22:16 clearly say "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and "be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Maybe this has been pointed out already and I missed it.

 

[Glen55]

I wouldn't be a traditional historic Christian, so my Esoteric grasp of scripture may not be something you would except, with that in mind I was once a historic believer until the research exposed it to be a fraud, I would be in the same spirit of 2Cor 3:6 that people like Alvin Boyd Kuhn taught about.

If that isn't exceptable I will move on!

 

[Angelina]

Hi Glen55, welcome to CyB.
I have already closed a topic which was in response to our SoF in another forum. This is what the admin had already stated in the post above and what the team here agrees with ~

Folks, we made a choice on the Nicene Creed and we are sticking by it. I've seen many challenges to it throughout my years and suffice to say that if you don't abide by it, no amount of "showing" will work, because usually you hold a doctrine that's irreconcilable. No, it's not going to be removed. And no, we will not automatically exclude someone who doesn't agree or affirm it.

Our SoF exists to show where we are coming from and where our mark is for (little "o") orthodoxy. We try very hard to provide latitude for discussions that might go outside what we view as part of the Christian faith, but that's a case-by-case basis often quite dependent upon the attitude of the divergent Christian.

As for Bible versions, we do appreciate the feedback. We spent a ton of time deliberating on the various strengths and weaknesses of each version. They all have their problems, but shy of a very small minority of versions, we feel that most will adequately portray the entirety of the gospel and the glory of the Lord.

Last but not least, reasons for retired/disabled accounts vary from moderator actions to personal choices. We do not give out reasons to protect the privacy of our members. However, I can say that no person who has replied here has left due to the SoF nor am I aware of anyone who left specifically due to disagreement.

It is your choice whether you join us here or not but you will not be excluded from being a member just because you do not agree with our SOF however, rest be assured, our position is clear on this particular subject.

Be Blessed!

 

[mjrhealth]

If God was to read any statement of faith on any forum He, and Christ being of the truth, would never be able to be a part of any of them.

In all His Love

 

[HammerStone]

But then Christ would also not say that everyone who proclaims Christian status is actually a Christian? I'm pretty sure we have verses about that.

We submit to the will of Christ, but we are not Christ in our determinations. In fact, your beliefs about the other person are no different from a creed, you have a system of thoughts that may not be codified, but nevertheless reveal where the other person stands in your discussion(s).

 

[OzSpen]

If God was to read any statement of faith on any forum He, and Christ being of the truth, would never be able to be a part of any of them.

In all His Love

You would need to be God and Christ to make that kind of statement.

 

[OzSpen]

But then Christ would also not say that everyone who proclaims Christian status is actually a Christian? I'm pretty sure we have verses about that.

We submit to the will of Christ, but we are not Christ in our determinations. In fact, your beliefs about the other person are no different from a creed, you have a system of thoughts that may not be codified, but nevertheless reveal where the other person stands in your discussion(s).

Are you thinking of Matt 7:21-23 (ESV)?

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

 

[epostle1]

[/font][/color]

Simple; it acknowledges the ambiguity of the relationship of Catholics (and to a lesser extent Orthodox) to Protestant Christianity, yet retains the acknowledgement that there are certainly Catholic and Orthodox Christians. I'm thinking specifically about the Catholic view of works, as an example. The Catholic view and the Protestant view are not immediately reconcilable because they are so distinct - after all, there was that whole little issue of the Reformation. As I've said before, this forum is a Protestant forum at its core, but that does not mean we must not fellowship with our brothers and sisters from traditions where there may be some level of disagreement. Preference will be given to the Protestant position in the matter (I am simply stating the nature of having a forum run by Protestants) but Catholic viewpoints have never been restricted here and won't be unless they violate our rules. (IE: Excessive denominational postings of Catholic catechisms, etc, which has been an issue here from time to time.)

Nobody reads it anyway, just as nobody reads long lists of unrelated bible verses. But explanation of Catholic doctrine and their development requires thought/study and may require more than a bumper sticker answer. What I fail to understand is why excessive misrepresentations, half truths, falsehoods and lies concerning Catholicism never get deleted. You know which posts I am talking about, they are in your report file. Excessive hate speech is permitted but rebutting it is not allowed. That's called a double standard.

 

[OzSpen]

Nobody reads it [Statement of Faith] anyway, just as nobody reads long lists of unrelated bible verses.

This is NOT true. I read every word of the Statement of Faith to better understand the theological standard of this website. Any good Christian website should have a Statement of Faith to discern if posts are inside or outside those parameters.

However, I agree with you that long lists of unrelated Bible verses are not a good example of the promotion of sound Christian doctrine.

I'll add another: Using logical fallacies to divert attention away from the primary issue being discussed. This is done frequently on the forums I frequent. It is done just as frequently when I post a reply in the 'Comments' section of the local online newspaper. Getting a reply that addresses the topic in harmony with the questions asked, is often very difficult.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

From an Orthodox site:

I believe in (Romans 10: 8-10; 1 John 4: 15)
One God (Deuteronomy 6: 4, Ephesians 4: 6)
Father (Matthew 6: 9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6: 3)
Creator of heaven and earth, (Genesis 1: 1)
and of all things visible and invisible; (Colossians 1: 15-16) and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, (Acts 11: 17)
Son of God (Matthew 14: 33; 16: 16)
begotten (John 1: 18; 3: 16)
begotten of the Father before all ages; (John 1: 2)
Light of Light (Psalm 27: I; John 8: 12; Matthew 17: 2,5)
true God of true God, (John 17: 1-5)
of one essence with the Father, (John 10: 30)
through Whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1: 1-2)
Who for us and for our salvation (I Timothy 2: 4-5)
came down from the heavens ((John 6: 33,35)
and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1: 35)
and became man. (John 1: 14)
Crucified for us (Mark 15: 25; I Corinthians 15: 3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 1: 14)
He suffered, (Mark 8: 31)
and was buried; (Luke 23: 53; I Corinthians 15: 4)
Rising on the third day according to the Scriptures, (Luke 24: 1; 1 Cor. 15: 4)
And ascending into the heavens, (Luke 24: 51; Acts 1: 10)
He is seated at the right hand of the Father; (Mark 16: 19; Acts 7: 55)
And coming again in glory (Matthew 24: 27)
to judge the living and dead, (Acts 10: 42; 2 I Timothy 4: 1)
His kingodom shall have no end; (2 Peter 1: 11)
And in the holy Spirit, (John 14: 26)
Lord (Acts 5: 3-4)
the Giver of life, (Genesis 1: 2)
Who proceeds from the Father, (John 15: 26)
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, (Matthew 3: 16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets; (I Samuel 19: 20; Ezekiel 11: 5, 13)
In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (I Peter 2: 5, 9)
catholic (Mark 16: 15)
and apostolic Church; (Acts 2: 42; Ephesians 2: 19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; (Ephesians 4: 5)
I expect the resurrection of the dead; (John 11: 24; I Cor. 15: 12-49)
And the life of the age to come. (Mark 10: 29-30)
Amen. (Psalm 106:48)

 

[StanJ]

Not surprising that kepha31 would want a SoF that finds it's roots in the RCC doctrines. It's very similar to the Apostle's Creed.
I have no problem with the one that does exist.

 

[Born_Again]

Indeed.... There's too many different faiths that don't support RCC doctrine on here for that to fly.

 

[DanielGarneau]

[...] we absolutely reject many Catholic doctrines and positions, but we do not reject individual Catholics as nonChristian. This also extended to our Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox brothers and sisters in the faith who we disagree with from a slightly distinct perspective. [...]

I would agree with this statement, and view it as the way we might be interacting on a personal basis with individuals from these two faith traditions, at work, for example. Such interactions do not imply that we agree with the doctrinal system to which they suscribe. So, on a board like this one, we may interact with those who are willing to get involved in conversation with us in such a way as to gain better mutual understanding where needed, and perhaps help each other in our walk with God along the way.

 

[DanielKeeran]

There appears nothing about baptism into Christ as per Romans 6.

 

[lforrest]

There appears nothing about baptism into Christ as per Romans 6.

This could be a good topic for the theology section of the forum. There are disputes about baptism, and what it means even among our members. When it comes to baptism, what beliefs concerning it should be close-handed?

 

[Brother James]

I think it is important for each one of us to recognize that he has an imperfect understanding of God's truths. God has revealed Himself through His holy scriptures, but He certainly has not given me perfect understanding of them, and I believes He allows for my imperfection. In fact, I'm counting on it. So if my understanding is imperfect, which point is wrong? Well, if I knew then I'd think differently. I count on God to give me the understanding, wisdom, and discernment He needs me to have in order to accomplish His will for my life. That is enough for me. And while I might believe another person's understanding is even more imperfect than mine, I do not allow that to cause me to judge his salvation or his eternal destiny. My own pride likely separates me more from God than a church that tries to put a layer of clergy between God and me. So I do need to be humble in what I assert is true, even as I am bold in stating the gospel. Boldness and humility are not incompatible, but it is a rare thing to find. But that's something to strive for, I think. No, that doesn't mean compromise, it means recognizing that I don't have all the truths sorted out right in my own head, that's all. I'm not the source of the truths, there's only one Source. But I don't want to be a stumbling block for anybody.

 

[lforrest]

I think you would agree that some beliefs are essential to the Christian Faith. Would you still be a Christian if you believe there are many paths to salvation and belief in Christ is not necessary? Or if you denied the Resurrection of Christ? These would be examples of beliefs in conflict with core principles of Christianity that are dubbed closed-handed issues in the statement of faith.

I agree we have to be very careful when deciding what is a closed-handed issue, so as not to put stumbling blocks before anyone. But on the other hand you don't want to overlook a heresy if God would not be willing to do the same. There are clearly some beliefs and actions a true Christian must take to be considered as such by God.

I would err on the side of caution and only make closed handed those beliefs which can be clearly determined to be as such by Scripture. God may consider more to be closed handed than we do, but the individual is the one accountable for their own beliefs and actions.

 

[OzSpen]

I think you would agree that some beliefs are essential to the Christian Faith. Would you still be a Christian if you believe there are many paths to salvation and belief in Christ is not necessary? Or if you denied the Resurrection of Christ? These would be examples of beliefs in conflict with core principles of Christianity that are dubbed closed-handed issues in the statement of faith.

I agree we have to be very careful when deciding what is a closed-handed issue, so as not to put stumbling blocks before anyone. But on the other hand you don't want to overlook a heresy if God would not be willing to do the same. There are clearly some beliefs and actions a true Christian must take to be considered as such by God.

I would err on the side of caution and only make closed handed those beliefs which can be clearly determined to be as such by Scripture. God may consider more to be closed handed than we do, but the individual is the one accountable for their own beliefs and actions.

lforrest,

I think we need to be more precise, as an example, of how we state Jesus' resurrection. Take these verses:

Luke 24:44-46 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
44 Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you—that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures, 46 and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah[a] is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day,

Of these verses, John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar states:

I have already argued, for instance, that Jesus' burial by his friends was totally fictional and unhistorical. He was buried, if buried at all, by his enemies, and the necessarily shallow grave would have been easy prey for scavenging animals. ... Resurrection is but one way, not the only way, of expressing Christian faith.... Second, apparition - which involves trance, that altered state of consciousness.... The structure emphasizes that we are dealing with a general community.... What we have here is not an event from Easter Sunday but a process that happened over many years. The presence and empowerment of Jesus remain in the community as it studies the scriptures "about" him and shares a meal of bread and fish together. This is not trance but exegesis, not ecstasy but eucharist' (Crossan 1994:160,172).

In light of postmodern, liberal historical Jesus' scholars such as Crossan and others, I consider that we have to be precise in affirming Jesus' bodily resurrection. In his post-resurrection appearances, the disciples were able to see Jesus, converse with him, eat with him and touch him. He was a real human being - but with some differences - after the resurrection. It was a genuine bodily resurrection.

Is that a reasonable conclusion that we need to be firm about?

Blessings,
Oz

Works consulted
Crossan, J D 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

 

[Angelina]

lforrest,

I think we need to be more precise, as an example, of how we state Jesus' resurrection. Take these verses:

Of these verses, John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar states:

In light of postmodern, liberal historical Jesus' scholars such as Crossan and others, I consider that we have to be precise in affirming Jesus' bodily resurrection. In his post-resurrection appearances, the disciples were able to see Jesus, converse with him, eat with him and touch him. He was a real human being - but with some differences - after the resurrection. It was a genuine bodily resurrection.

Is that a reasonable conclusion that we need to be firm about?

Blessings,
Oz

Works consulted
Crossan, J D 1994. Jesus: A revolutionary biography. New York, NY: HarperSanFrancisco.

Some good thoughts Oz but If people didn't believe what the apostles saw first hand regarding Jesus and his resurrection, they certainly aren't going to believe now. Even back in the day, the Chief priests and the Pharisees were hatching plans to ensure that Jesus story of rising from the dead after 3 days [as he had prophesied], were not going to be assisted in any way by his disciples. Matthew 27:62-66...and when he did rise again without physical assistance, they made sure that his story was still proven to be false. Matthew 28:10-15