How Strongly Do You Hold to Your Doctrinal Beliefs?

[ivdavid]

Maybe you cannot read?

Definitely cannot read your mind. You seemed to say there was confusion in the usage of the word 'saved' and that you considered the notion of a person who's saved and then perishes as nonsense. I quoted Jude 1:5 which says just that explicitly. You obviously don't hold Scriptures to be nonsense - so I suggested more precision in our definitions to avoid such confusion. How exactly does your response here progress this dialog? As a thumb rule, isn't it easier to directly clarify instead of passing snarky jibes?

 

[Aaron]

Yea, well, scripture records his involvement briefly, in a few sentences, and that's it. Much more is recorded about the Jews who were actually convicted of the crime by the mouth of His witnesses, many times over. At the very least "He suffered under Pontius Pilate" is incomplete. The Jews, who were the real culprits, should at least have been mentioned.

It's not saying Pilate was His persecutor, though he had the power to deliver Christ from the hands of the Jews and didn't do it, It's saying Pilate was in power at the time, like Luke's saying the taxing was first done when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. That's how I take it anyway.

Besides, all of the tenets need exposition. Calvin's "Institutes" follow the headings and organization of the Creed. He didn't just hand the Creed over to Francis I with no explanation.

 

[37818]

Definitely cannot read your mind. You seemed to say there was confusion in the usage of the word 'saved' and that you considered the notion of a person who's saved and then perishes as nonsense. I quoted Jude 1:5 which says just that explicitly. You obviously don't hold Scriptures to be nonsense - so I suggested more precision in our definitions to avoid such confusion. How exactly does your response here progress this dialog? As a thumb rule, isn't it easier to directly clarify instead of passing snarky jibes?

The argument exists that one can be saved on the way to heaven and then loose that salvation. That type of usage of the word "saved" to me is nonsense. That is no gift of salvation at all. It is a works salvation. I do not know how else I can explain it. If one dies and ends up in the eternal fire, they were never saved, as I use the word "saved."

1 John 5:13 says one can know one has eternal life. If one ends up in the eternal fire one did not know any such thing.

 

[Yeshua1]

At best that is a mere interpretation conflating two distinct truths. That "the Word was God." John 1:1. And "the Word was made flesh." John 1:14. Failing to distinguish the fact that Jesus is a man and not God. ". . . Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. . . ." -- Jobn 20:17. ". . . For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . ." -- 1Timothy 2:5.

Noting ". . . the Word was God." And that God does not change. That the Word "was God" did not change when how the Word was "with God" did change.

The Eternal God the Son assumed on sinless humanity/flesh, and forever more is now the God man Jesus the Christ!

 

[Yeshua1]

Definitely cannot read your mind. You seemed to say there was confusion in the usage of the word 'saved' and that you considered the notion of a person who's saved and then perishes as nonsense. I quoted Jude 1:5 which says just that explicitly. You obviously don't hold Scriptures to be nonsense - so I suggested more precision in our definitions to avoid such confusion. How exactly does your response here progress this dialog? As a thumb rule, isn't it easier to directly clarify instead of passing snarky jibes?

Jude refers to those who were numbered among the nation of Israel, but were not believers in Yahweh, would be same as those who sit the Church pews and are church member sand are not saved!

 

[Van]

How strongly do you hold to doctrines that you consider to be biblical truth? I am not asking about beliefs in which you are unsure. For instance, I lean towards Amillennialism, but my leaning is not without doubts. I will not say that my eschatological preference is unassailable. However, I hold to many doctrines that I am completely convinced are biblical truth and that all competing teachings are in error. This does not mean that other beliefs are not within the scope of orthodoxy. For example, Dichotomy and Trichotomy are both accepted teachings among professing Christians. It does not mean that both are right, it means that true believers can hold to either doctrine and not imperil their faith. The same cannot be said about the divinity of Christ. That Jesus is God, the second person of the Trinity, is the only orthodox teaching on the person of Christ.

What doctrinal positions do you hold to with a clenched fist and which ones do you hold to loosely?

End times theology seems speculative to me, so I hold my progressive dispensationalism loosely. OTOH, I believe firmly:
1) Once saved, always saved
2) Christ died for all mankind, those to be saved and those never to be saved.
3) God chooses individuals for salvation conditionally, through faith in the truth.
4) We start out able to receive and respond to the gospel, but some of us lose our limited spiritual ability.
5) We beg the lost to be reconciled to God, but they are not compelled to accept the offer.

 

[MB]

Definitely cannot read your mind. You seemed to say there was confusion in the usage of the word 'saved' and that you considered the notion of a person who's saved and then perishes as nonsense. I quoted Jude 1:5 which says just that explicitly. You obviously don't hold Scriptures to be nonsense - so I suggested more precision in our definitions to avoid such confusion. How exactly does your response here progress this dialog? As a thumb rule, isn't it easier to directly clarify instead of passing snarky jibes?

You're talking two different types of Saved. Jude 1:5 pertains physical life. Being saved Salvation from sin is for ever.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

End times theology seems speculative to me, so I hold my progressive dispensationalism loosely. OTOH, I believe firmly:
1) Once saved, always saved
2) Christ died for all mankind, those to be saved and those never to be saved.
3) God chooses individuals for salvation conditionally, through faith in the truth.
4) We start out able to receive and respond to the gospel, but some of us lose our limited spiritual ability.
5) We beg the lost to be reconciled to God, but they are not compelled to accept the offer.

How do you explain John 1:18 then based upon point 3 here?

 

[37818]

The Eternal God the Son assumed on sinless humanity/flesh, and forever more is now the God man Jesus the Christ!

His bodily resurrection. He is not a God Man mixture. He is truly both God and distinctly an immortal man and not a mixture.

 

[37818]

The Eternal God the Son assumed on sinless humanity/flesh, and forever more is now the God man Jesus the Christ!

He did not cease being the sinless God when, how He was with God changed, and He changed to be a sinless man.

 

[Yeshua1]

His bodily resurrection. He is not a God Man mixture. He is truly both God and distinctly an immortal man and not a mixture.

Not as mixture, as He is fully God and fully Man, just that God the Son assumed human flesh and likeness, assumed a sinless human nature and humanity...

 

[Yeshua1]

He did not cease being the sinless God when, how He was with God changed, and He changed to be a sinless man.

he was is always fully God! just now also sinless andglorified man!

 

[Van]

How do you explain John 1:18 then based upon point 3 here?

John 1:18 (NET)
18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Thus John 1:18 does not conflict with point 3, God chooses individuals for salvation conditionally, through faith in the truth.

James 2:5, Listen my siblings, did not God chose those poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. This translation makes clear brethren refers to siblings of either sex in Christ, and that when individually chosen for the promised kingdom, they were rich in faith and loved God. Thus a conditional election for salvation.

 

[Reformed1689]

Soteriology, Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology, Hamartiology are all non-negotiables for me.

Eschatology, Parts of Ecclesiology, Angelology, Demonology, have some points that I think are debatable.

 

[Reformed1689]

James 2:5, Listen my siblings, did not God chose those poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. This translation makes clear brethren refers to siblings of either sex in Christ, and that when individually chosen for the promised kingdom, they were rich in faith and loved God. Thus a conditional election for salvation.

Which translation is that?

 

[Yeshua1]

John 1:18 (NET)
18 No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.

Thus John 1:18 does not conflict with point 3, God chooses individuals for salvation conditionally, through faith in the truth.

James 2:5, Listen my siblings, did not God chose those poor to the world, yet rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God. This translation makes clear brethren refers to siblings of either sex in Christ, and that when individually chosen for the promised kingdom, they were rich in faith and loved God. Thus a conditional election for salvation.

God makes Himself known to those whom he has decided to get saved in Christ, due to his will, not their will!
John 1:13

 

[MB]

God makes Himself known to those whom he has decided to get saved in Christ, due to his will, not their will!
John 1:13

When the will of God is the same as mans will we have a relationship.
MB

 

[Van]

God makes Himself known to those whom he has decided to get saved in Christ, due to his will, not their will!
John 1:13

LOL, John 1:18 and John 1:13 are non-germane. Were you trying to find John 1:9?

9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man.

But John 1:9 supports point 4.

End times theology seems speculative to me, so I hold my progressive dispensationalism loosely. OTOH, I believe firmly:
1) Once saved, always saved
2) Christ died for all mankind, those to be saved and those never to be saved.
3) God chooses individuals for salvation conditionally, through faith in the truth.
4) We start out able to receive and respond to the gospel, but some of us lose our limited spiritual ability.
5) We beg the lost to be reconciled to God, but they are not compelled to accept the offer.

 

[Van]

Which translation is that?

I suppose "poor to the world" could be rendered "poor according to the world" or poor according to mankind.

But no matter, they were rich in faith when chosen for salvation and they loved God when chosen for salvation thus a conditional election based on faith.

James 2:5, Listen my siblings, did not God chose those poor according to the mankind, yet rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

 

[Yeshua1]

I suppose "poor to the world" could be rendered "poor according to the world" or poor according to mankind.

But no matter, they were rich in faith when chosen for salvation and they loved God when chosen for salvation thus a conditional election based on faith.

James 2:5, Listen my siblings, did not God chose those poor according to the mankind, yet rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Even that faith was a gift from God to them though!
Ephesians 2:8-10