How Strongly Do You Hold to Your Doctrinal Beliefs?

[kyredneck]

The Holy Spirit certainly did move in Elizabeth’s womb to cause the unborn baby John to leap. Does this mean John was regenerated? I do not think so. Elizabeth and her unborn baby were in the presence of the unborn King of Kings. This was a unique event.

'A unique event'. What a cop-out. You can destroy/shut the door on any Biblical example you want with that lame response.

 

[kyredneck]

I like the notes in the NET Bible on this chapter. “The description of Cornelius as a devout, God-fearing man probably means that he belonged to the category called “God-fearers,”

Yea. In Christ's words:

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10

It was in Acts 10 when the joining of the two folds began.

1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith Jehovah. Isa 54

26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: For more are the children of the desolate than of her that hath the husband. Gal 4

There were more 'Cornelius's' out there than there were Jews.

 

[kyredneck]

Maybe a person can be regenerated for days, weeks, months, or years before coming to faith in Christ. I just do not see any compelling evidence for that view in scripture.

That's because you've confined yourself to a box. But you're 'mainstream', I suppose that's what matters to you.

 

[tyndale1946]

I'm watching Kentucky but sometime I get tired of beating the same drum over and over again, ect, ect, ect... Birth before belief... Brother Glen

 

[Reformed]

@kyredneck , thank you for your thoughts. The purpose of this thread was not to exhaustively debate specific doctrines but to find out how strongly people hold to doctrines. Now, if you want to start a thread on the topic of regeneration, feel free to do so.

 

[rockytopva]

If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...

Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)

And there are three varieties...

Natural E/c2 - All mass is basically cooled plasma, the sun is the visible form of E/c2.
Mental E/c2 - Mentally, a mathematical formula, but this has chemical and spiritual properties as well.
Spiritual E/c2 - E (motivation, warmth, love) / c2 (faith, hope, charity, joy)

The problem with doctrinal beliefs are that you can physically look the part, mentally know all the doctrine... Yet something is still missing spiritually! It used to be every Baptist I knew went to a large country Baptist church. The old country preacher retires and they get one with a Masters Degree with no people skills. Now nobody I know goes to that church!

My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you, - Galatians 4:19
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature... - 2 Peter 1:4

It is nice to sense the spirit of Christ along with all those doctrinal beliefs!

 

[37818]

How firm is your grasp on this? Do you consider it an essential doctrine or is it a strong preference or opinion?

It is my Biblical understanding that the word of God explicity throughout teaches faith in Christ precedes salvation.

". . . Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, . . ." -- Acts of the Apostle 16:31. σωθηση verb future passive indicative.

So it is not just a strong preference or mere opinion.

This is the reason for the OP. In other thread, a poster was insisting that I could not say something was biblical truth because there were other views on a specific doctrine. The poster insinuated that I started first with the doctrine and then worked backward to defend it biblically. His insinuation could not have been more wrong.

Since there are very few new doctrines, often it is a matter of whether we have examined a doctrine to see whether or not it is biblical. This is different than forming an opinion on a specific doctrine and then trying to defend it. For instance, if I said, "I like the way infralapsarianism sounds, so I am going to believe it" then I have put human reasoning ahead of biblical truth. However, I say, "I am not acquainted with the arguments for infralapsarianism, so I am going to study the issue in scripture" then I am appealing to God's word for the answer.

Once we become convinced that a specific doctrine is either true or not, we should consider how much weight the doctrine deserves and how far we are willing to go to defend it. Would any of us consider the virgin birth of Christ to be a minor doctrine? Is it something we can say is a take-it-or-leave-it doctrine? How about the Trinity or the return of the Lord? Those are pretty important, right? Worth falling on your sword over?

Those not being secondary issues.

Sure they are. How about Cessationism versus Continualism? Trichotomy versus Dichotomy? The Regulative Principle of Worship versus the Normative Principle of Worship? Monergism versus Synergism? Dispensationalism versus Covenant Theology? Or how about the one you just mentioned, Regeneration preceding faith versus faith preceding regeneration? Where do you stand on these doctrines? Are there some of them that you are unsure about? Do you consider all of them to be of equal importance? Are some of them just strong opinions or preferences or are you willing to fall on your sword over them?

One can be sure about secondary issues without them being matters of salvation.

There is an on going problem of language. For example, having been saved means to one is no longer going to perish. For me the notion that one can be saved and then later die and not go to Heaven is nonsense. Saved does not mean saved then.

 

[Aaron]

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?

The tenets of the Apostles' Creed are the hills I will die on.

 

[ivdavid]

There is an on going problem of language. For example, having been saved means to one is no longer going to perish. For me the notion that one can be saved and then later die and not go to Heaven is nonsense. Saved does not mean saved then.

Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Shouldn't we instead qualify with more precision what one is being saved from and what one is being saved unto?

 

[robycop3]

I am sure God exists. I am sure Scripture is His word to us, & it's completely true. I am sure Scripture is mostly-literal. I am sure Iwas saved from the penalty for my sins by Jesus.

I am sure the Holy Trinity exists.

I am sure the KJVO myth is false.

I am sure preterism is false.

I am sure the "7 church ages" doctrine is false.

I am sure "baptismal regeneration" is false.

 

[kyredneck]

The tenets of the Apostles' Creed are the hills I will die on.

The Apostles Creed (ICET)

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

I've always thought "He suffered under Pontius Pilate" is misleading; Matthew 27:24-26; Acts of the Apostles 2:23; Acts of the Apostles 3:13.

The Holy Spirit makes no bones about placing the blame squarely on the Jews.

 

[Jerome]

Oops, all those verses, and you seemed to have passed over Acts 4:27, you know, where Scripture places the blame on "both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel."

I'm sure that was just an oversight on your part.
You're welcome.

 

[utilyan]

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?

Love is the highest priority. 1 Corinthians 13

God is Love 1 John 4

God is GOOD. God is Actually Good. God is provable to be Good. Not by double standard, Not just merely called Good by obligation. Not selfish, Not Evil, Not a megalomaniac.

Philippians 2

1Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

The Cardinal doctrinal truths cannot be changed, while there are mainy that can have differing opinions about!

Jesus is God, Cross only way to get saved, Jesus physical rose agin, Second Coming future, God is a Trinity, these can not be disputed, must be held...

Modes of water baptism, timing of second coming, etc can disagree on!

 

[rlvaughn]

How strongly do you hold to doctrines that you consider to be biblical truth?...What doctrinal positions do you hold to with a clenched fist and which ones do you hold to loosely?

First, two foundational truths – that God is and that he has revealed Himself in the sixty-six books we call the Holy Bible. God is eternally self-existent (Genesis 1:1; Exodus 3:14; Hebrews 11:6) and the Bible is inspired by God (Psalm 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

• All things were created by and continue to exist by the sovereign God, who reveals Himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
• The work of God in the world through Jesus Christ is the central truth of the Bible.
• Salvation is a need of man and a work of God, by grace and through Jesus’s blood, and we are kept by the power of God.
• The gospel is how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.
• The gospel is to be preached throughout the world.
• The Son of God was born into this world of a virgin, lived sinlessly in the flesh, died on the cross and rose from the grave. He has promised to return again.
• A church is a congregation of baptized believers covenanted together in the name of Christ, under the headship of Christ, and each church is independent of other churches.
• Baptism is the immersion of repentant believers in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
• Love for one another is the great manifestation and true test of discipleship.

I hold these “with a clenched fist” in tension with the fact that if any of them should be wrong I desire that God will pry open my fist and take them away.

 

[Aaron]

The Apostles Creed (ICET)

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

I've always thought "He suffered under Pontius Pilate" is misleading; Matthew 27:24-26; Acts of the Apostles 2:23; Acts of the Apostles 3:13.

The Holy Spirit makes no bones about placing the blame squarely on the Jews.

It was under his authority and power, and with his approval that these things happened.

 

[Revmitchell]

On Soteriological issues I hold very strongly and will not be moved. Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin, lived a sinless life, was hung on a cross and shed his blood, He died, and was resurrected on the third day as well as was seen by more than 500 people in the immediate days there after. That is the gospel. Nothing more, nothing less.

On Eschatological issues I am open but have never seen a good or reasonable argument to change my mind. I am not a true dispensationalist but I am dispyish. I do believe that Jesus will return literally and physically and on that I am not willing to move. Anything else is serious error.

Those are the two main issues spoken of on this board and I will leave it at that.

 

[kyredneck]

It was under his authority and power, and with his approval that these things happened.

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.

 

[37818]

Jud 1:5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Shouldn't we instead qualify with more precision what one is being saved from and what one is being saved unto?

Maybe you cannot read?

It is my Biblical understanding that the word of God explicity throughout teaches faith in Christ precedes salvation. So it is not just a strong preference or mere opinion.




Those not being secondary issues.


One can be sure about secondary issues without them being matters of salvation.

There is an on going problem of language. For example, having been saved means to one is no longer going to perish. For me the notion that one can be saved and then later die and not go to Heaven is nonsense. Saved does not mean saved then.

 

[37818]

Jesus is God, . . .

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.