Common ground and points of disagreement.

[Reformed1689]

Am I understand ing you here? Are you really claiming the Gospel is not defined in the New Testament documents? That would be so anti-Baptist.

No. I am saying you can't just say "The Gospel is defined in the NT" because that doesn't tell you anything.

 

[37818]

No. I am saying you can't just say "The Gospel is defined in the NT" because that doesn't tell you anything.

Meaning what? You have no genuine Christianity without the handed down New Testament documents. No resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Reformed1689]

Meaning what? You have no genuine Christianity without the handed down New Testament documents. No resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Of course. But just saying "I believe the Bible" tells us nothing. What do you believe about it? What does it actually say? What does it actually mean? That's my point.

 

[Lodic]

The creed known as the Apostles Creed only lacks credit to the Son as Creator. Otherwise teaches no false teaching.

Now what is more commonly cited as the Nicene Creed, 381 AD. Has its unBiblical teachings. Such as:

". . . the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, . . ."

". . . Light from Light . . . ."

". . . baptism for the forgiveness of sins. . . ."

How are those statements unBiblical? Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. "Light from Light" - Jesus is the Light of the World (John 8:12). John the Baptist preached "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4).

 

[37818]

Of course. But just saying "I believe the Bible" tells us nothing. What do you believe about it? What does it actually say? What does it actually mean? That's my point.

I never claimed the words "New Testament" means the Gospel by them selves any more than the word "Gospel" or the words "believe Jesus is the Christ" tells anyone what that means. I deem your argument to be dishonest. You know full well what the New Testament refers to.

 

[Reformed1689]

I never claimed the words "New Testament" means the Gospel by them selves any more than the word "Gospel" or the words "believe Jesus is the Christ" tells anyone what that means. I deem your argument to be dishonest. You know full well what the New Testament refers to.

I think you are missing the point.

 

[37818]

How are those statements unBiblical? Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. "Light from Light" - Jesus is the Light of the World (John 8:12). John the Baptist preached "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" (Mark 1:4).

You really do not understand.
Being "only begotten Son of God" in the sample as "the only Son of God" is who the error is about. The Son was never begotten to become the Son. The error was to claim to be "eternally begotten."
Furthermore the "true Light" is the "true Light" not a mere "Light from Light." He the Son is not another God, but the same God as His Father.
Now "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" is not ",baptism for the forgiveness of sins." The repentance is. Big difference.

 

[tyndale1946]

Of course. But just saying "I believe the Bible" tells us nothing. What do you believe about it? What does it actually say? What does it actually mean? That's my point.

I think the problem arise as when we post what we believe and expect the brethren who read these OP's or posts expect us to believe just like they do... I will tell you what I believe, now some brethren are going to believe just like I do and some are not... This is just not here!... In all my tenure on here, it is not just here it is also in the body of believers you worship with, some will see things one way and some another... Each of us grow and mature as Christians and we add daily to what we already know but what I understand now should be greater than what I understood when I first joined the BB many years ago... We learn from each other not to change what we do know, although in our interaction with each other, change may come by something someone said that causes the change, as we look and examine it further may change our mind, to how we understood it before... Can I agree to disagree?... Do we hear what another brother says and examine where he is coming from?... We can bang scriptures together but if they don't harmonize, what purpose does it serve?... And no matter what we do, and how we interact with one another, our focus must always be centered on Jesus Christ... Brother Glen

2 Timothy 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

 

[Yeshua1]

Brothers (and sisters) in Christ must have some common grounds in our beliefs, otherwise we would not be brothers in Christ. Our common ground should include belief in the physical death and resurrection of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith, God exists as the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, etc.

Points of disagreement regarding some doctrines should be okay, as long as the views are how one interprets Scripture, and as long as the views held are not heretical. We have different views regarding whether the Gifts of the Spirit are for today, many different views of the "End Times", and other non-essential views. These different views may even be good for us, to expose us to other interpretations. Isn't that part of how "iron sharpens iron" (Proverbs 27:17)?

That being said, sometimes we may have trouble distinguishing essential doctrines from non-essential views. We should not let our different views on the non-essentials divide us. As Paul encourages us in Romans 14, we should not have quarrels over opinions (v. 1), and each person must be fully convinced of his views (v. 5).

They would be the so called Essentials of the Faith, as think RA Torrey had the Fundamentals of the Faith early Century

 

[Lodic]

You really do not understand.
Being "only begotten Son of God" in the sample as "the only Son of God" is who the error is about. The Son was never begotten to become the Son. The error was to claim to be "eternally begotten."
Furthermore the "true Light" is the "true Light" not a mere "Light from Light." He the Son is not another God, but the same God as His Father.
Now "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" is not ",baptism for the forgiveness of sins." The repentance is. Big difference.

Seems like a matter of semantics. In the NASB, John 3:16 calls Jesus God's "only son", where the KJV says "only begotten son". "Eternally begotten" is an archaic way of saying He always was God's only begotten Son.

I really don't get the "light from light" point. Of course Jesus is the same God as the Father. The early Church fathers taught that. None of the creeds dispute the Trinity.

The "baptism" quote is often misunderstood. The Catholic church understands it to mean that baptism is required, but it is a quote from Mark's gospel. You and I agree on the proper interpretation.

If you don't want to use the early creeds as a summary of the key doctrines of your faith, that's your call. My main points were that 1) we need to recognize the difference between primary doctrines and doctrines of less importance; and 2) the early creeds provide a good example of primary doctrines.

 

[Yeshua1]

You really do not understand.
Being "only begotten Son of God" in the sample as "the only Son of God" is who the error is about. The Son was never begotten to become the Son. The error was to claim to be "eternally begotten."
Furthermore the "true Light" is the "true Light" not a mere "Light from Light." He the Son is not another God, but the same God as His Father.
Now "baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" is not ",baptism for the forgiveness of sins." The repentance is. Big difference.

Jesus was God the Son before assumed on Human flesh and is now God man!

 

[Yeshua1]

Seems like a matter of semantics. In the NASB, John 3:16 calls Jesus God's "only son", where the KJV says "only begotten son". "Eternally begotten" is an archaic way of saying He always was God's only begotten Son.

I really don't get the "light from light" point. Of course Jesus is the same God as the Father. The early Church fathers taught that. None of the creeds dispute the Trinity.

The "baptism" quote is often misunderstood. The Catholic church understands it to mean that baptism is required, but it is a quote from Mark's gospel. You and I agree on the proper interpretation.

If you don't want to use the early creeds as a summary of the key doctrines of your faith, that's your call. My main points were that 1) we need to recognize the difference between primary doctrines and doctrines of less importance; and 2) the early creeds provide a good example of primary doctrines.

Those who framed the wording in the Creeds were very specific to refute Arinian via their wording Only Begotten of the Father meant He was also fully God!

 

[tyndale1946]

Those who framed the wording in the Creeds were very specific to refute Arinian via their wording Only Begotten of the Father meant He was also fully God!

I firmly believe in the Eternal Sonship Of Jesus Christ and I know there are some on here who don't but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, for those who don't... Brother Glen

 

[Yeshua1]

I firmly believe in the Eternal Sonship Of Jesus Christ and I know there are some on here who don't but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, for those who don't... Brother Glen

We must go by what they held that being, as they were very clear was to point out Jesus was and is very God of very God!

 

[37818]

I think you are missing the point.

The common ground is believing the Bible. Points of disagreement would be interpertations of the Bible. Genuine Christianity does stand or falls with the New Testament documents. The counterfeit Christianities makes some kind of claims to the same documents.

 

[Salty]

Of course. But just saying "I believe the Bible" tells us nothing. What do you believe about it? What does it actually say? What does it actually mean? That's my point.

The Roman Catholics say they believe the Bible
The Mormons say they believe the Bible
the JW's say they believe the Bible

Thus I agree with Reformed- just saying the Bible is true -doesn't say a whole lot.
I just looked at a web-site for a local evangelical church. The only "doctrine" listed is salvation and baptism.
I remember stopping there during the week, and I asked the secretary where the church stood on eternal security. She told me I would have to talk to a pastor!.

 

[37818]

Seems like a matter of semantics. In the NASB, John 3:16 calls Jesus God's "only son", where the KJV says "only begotten son". "Eternally begotten" is an archaic way of saying He always was God's only begotten Son.

The error is the notion that the Son was to be begotten in order to be the Son. He was always the Son. Or as some interpert He became the Son through the incarnation. If He was always the Son, He was never begotten to become the Son.

I really don't get the "light from light" point. Of course Jesus is the same God as the Father. The early Church fathers taught that. None of the creeds dispute the Trinity.

He was always the true Light even as His Father is the true God. John 1:9-10, Hebrews 1:3 and John 17:3. The Son is not a light from Light. The Son is the Light. Big difference.

Claiming the word of God teaches something it does not versus an interpertation claiming it does being used to accuse one of heresy over what is otherwise a secondary issue.

 

[Lodic]

The error is the notion that the Son was to be begotten in order to be the Son. He was always the Son. Or as some interpert He became the Son through the incarnation. If He was always the Son, He was never begotten to become the Son.


He was always the true Light even as His Father is the true God. John 1:9-10, Hebrews 1:3 and John 17:3. The Son is not a light from Light. The Son is the Light. Big difference.

Claiming the word of God teaches something it does not versus an interpertation claiming it does being used to accuse one of heresy over what is otherwise a secondary issue.

Agreed, Jesus always was, and always will be, the true Light. I did a little research about the "light from light" phrase in the Nicean Creed. Here is what I found:

"It was at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople that the true nature of Jesus was defended against a multitude of heresies. In particular, the words “God from God” and “Light from Light” were aimed against the Arian heresy, which denied the pre-existence of Christ. Arius (c. 250-336), a priest from Alexandria, argued that the Father alone is God in the full sense and that the Son was a being created by the Father. This idea was also called “subordinationism.” The Councils, drawing upon the traditions handed down to them from the Apostles, condemned the heresy and declared that Jesus was indeed both true God and true man. Against Arius, the Nicene Creed reasserts the principle that Jesus Christ is not made by God and so is of the created order, but is instead of the same order of being as the Father: uncreated, eternal, and timeless." This explanation does not contradict Scripture.

I agree that claiming that Scripture teaches something that it clearly does not is blasphemy. On the other hand, applying different interpretations of Scripture generally only happen with secondary issues. Scripture is very clear about foundational issues, and less clear on other doctrines.

We seem to be at odds over "begotten". I take that to refer to His incarnation when He was born to the Virgin Mary. Do you see this differently?

 

[37818]

We seem to be at odds over "begotten". I take that to refer to His incarnation when He was born to the Virgin Mary. Do you see this differently?

It's some what different. He was born the Son of God. Luke 1:35. But I agree He was the Son of God from eternity. He did not become the Son being born to His human mother. Some Christians do believe He became the Son in His incarnation. Now His Sonship was declared by His bodily resurrection from the dead by prophecy, Psalms 2:7. As explained by Paul, Acts of the Apostles 13:33 and Romans 1:4. He did not become the Son. He always was the Son as the Creator. And the cause of all that God did, John 5:19, John 1:2-3, Colossians 1:16-18.

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed, Jesus always was, and always will be, the true Light. I did a little research about the "light from light" phrase in the Nicean Creed. Here is what I found:

"It was at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople that the true nature of Jesus was defended against a multitude of heresies. In particular, the words “God from God” and “Light from Light” were aimed against the Arian heresy, which denied the pre-existence of Christ. Arius (c. 250-336), a priest from Alexandria, argued that the Father alone is God in the full sense and that the Son was a being created by the Father. This idea was also called “subordinationism.” The Councils, drawing upon the traditions handed down to them from the Apostles, condemned the heresy and declared that Jesus was indeed both true God and true man. Against Arius, the Nicene Creed reasserts the principle that Jesus Christ is not made by God and so is of the created order, but is instead of the same order of being as the Father: uncreated, eternal, and timeless." This explanation does not contradict Scripture.

I agree that claiming that Scripture teaches something that it clearly does not is blasphemy. On the other hand, applying different interpretations of Scripture generally only happen with secondary issues. Scripture is very clear about foundational issues, and less clear on other doctrines.

We seem to be at odds over "begotten". I take that to refer to His incarnation when He was born to the Virgin Mary. Do you see this differently?

Arianians see this as if Jesus was begotten by and of the father, must had been created as father preexisted him, but Creed affirms both existed eternally in that Father Son dynamic!