Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[DadSmith]

What about a preaching that does even teach the biblical truth. They instead focus on if you are successful you are closer to God?

When does God consider us successful?

When we walk in His ways. When we walk in God’s ways, we make the right decisions.
It is God’s truth that causes us to make good decisions.
When we are walking in God’s ways and making the right decisions we will be in the position or location that God wants us to be in.
This is success and is the only way we can find true joy and peace.
The principles that God taught throughout the Bible are the same principles that we need in order to be prosperous (this does not necessarily mean financially) and successful in these last days.
We cannot have any success (Biblically speaking) until we have a personal relationship with Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[DadSmith]

In general, mystery and humility in scripture reading and its interpretation have been replaced by scholasticism and pride. People WANT something new. They WANT the latest and greatest, and they are willing to PAY for it.

Before I say much more, I will say, a lot of the things I will say, I AM GUILTY of and may our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner.

Also, our society has compartmentalized our lives. We see it in how we express our politics. We see it in how we express our religious beliefs. We have public and private selves. If one expresses views on politics in language and images that one would NEVER say or show to anyone in the church sanctuary or the coffee hour after church, there is something fundamentally wrong.

What does that mean concretely? And I speak in generalities.....I will broadly speak of the difference.

For example, how is Mystery vs Scholasticism expressed?

Scholasticism permeates all of the language used when discussing salvation. We use the same terms but what we mean is sometimes unrecognizable to each other. To put this in secular terms for a gun forum. We want our Constitution interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended, but when it comes to our scriptures, American Christianity is largely ignorant of what the early Church Fathers believed about Christianity. I am not even talking about 4th century writings, there are writings of people who KNEW the apostles but no one bothers to read them. Clement's Letters to the Corinthians, Ignatios of Antioch on his way to Rome to martyred, the Didache....these things are all free online but if I asked 100 Christians today if they had heard of them much less read them, I doubt the percentage would be very high. In fact we race to get the LATEST books. Bible Codes, reading "LOST BOOKS" of the Bible. Those books were never lost, the early Christians knew of them all and REJECTED them.

CS Lewis said for every new book you read, read an old one. I would say, for the Christian, that means something written before 1517.

Read a Homily by John Chrysostom on a Gospel Passage instead of pulling down a commentary written in the last 200 years to try and understand the difference.


As an example of mysticism vs Scholasticism: Salvation: Relationship vs Transaction.

If I say Christ reconciles us to the Father. That will most likely mean something different to most modern day Protestants/Roman Catholics than it would to an ancient Christian. Protestants/Catholics start with a crime and punishment model that has some scriptural support, sure, but wasn't really developed until the middle ages by Anselm of Canterbury in Cur Deus Homo (Why did God become Man, literally, Why God Man)

Its like book keeping. God has a ledger and assets got to match liabilities.

Orthodoxy would say reconciliation should be thought of more like a couple in marital trouble. They are separated, now the Bridegroom has done all that he can to reconcile and can do no more. We, the bride, recognize the sinfulness in our lives and choose to return to the father's house. That is not the END, that is the beginning. It's not like a separated bride who returns lives as if the separation never happened. In a marriage there will be lingering concerns, resentments its not a single decision.

Another Example: Scriptural Interpretation: The Holy Spirit, the Bible, and me vs theHoly Spirit, the Bible, the Bible as historically understood to ensure I don't fall into error and me.

Protestantists value scripture much differently than they should. To come up with a new doctrine, I have to find a new "meaning" in a verse, then I must find support for that meaning in other verses. Then I go out and argue with other people who disagree with me by slinging verses of Holy Scripture back and forth in a point counterpoint fashion. Dispensationalism, Rapture, Millenial Reign.

For better or worse, some Protestants are rediscovering the early Church Fathers and reading their writings, however they interpret them the way they do scripture. They come with a preconceived doctrine then try to find quotes from the Fathers to support them. So I am not even sure encountering the Fathers of the Church will do much good anymore.

An earthly millenial reign was condemned as a heresy in the early church, but somewhere along the way it got resurrected. Now people want to argue about it. If people applied the way they want the constitution interpreted to the scriptures, a lot of errors could be avoided, but again, we have separated how we operate in the rest of our lives from how we approach God. Rapture, unheard of until 17 century when it gets into someones bible study notes now its all the rage.

In and of themselves, its OKAY to argue back and forth on several things, but schism and heresy are condemned. Think of riding in a car as a kid with other kids. You can fight all day long on the road trip but in the end you stay in the car. The adults in the front will keep you mostly in line.

I need to wrap up so excuse any hanging thoughts, but that is why Christianity, especially as it is expressed in the US, has lost its way. That is why Wesley's followers have strayed.

Just look to Wesley himself. Wesley was an Anglican (Episcopalian) priest. He never wanted his "followers" to schism from the Anglican communion. He wanted to reform the Church from within. He believed and read several early Church Fathers, there is even a story that when he had difficulty getting men ordained, because he believed in Apostolic succession by laying on of hands, he was ordained by an Eastern Orthodox Bishop.

He hardly had time for his body to cool in the grave before his followers schismed.

I've decided to read John Wesley, then will read Jacobas Arminius, and since he was basically a branch off of John Calvin teaching Arminianism instead of Calvin's predestination which I do not see at all in the Bible except for some badly translated verses that are not consistent with the rest of the New Covenant.
I'll be reading more of John Calvin as well because the small amount that I have read isn't enough.
I find myself not in alignment with any of the many doctrines out there so far because I'm seeing something very different in the Bible.
Some seem close, but go off in a different direction with some of their dogma.
So I just fit in where people are following the Bible the closest. At this point that is Wesley Arminianism.

 

[foszoe]

The Holy Spirit takes us into the circle dance (Perichoresis) of the Godhead and continually reveals Jesus to us(if we allow Him), who has always revealed the true nature of the Father. The Bible obviously has vital importance in our lives as well.

Are you saying the circle dance is applied to the persons of the Trinity or to us as we participate in the life of the Trinity through our deification?

 

[foszoe]

I've decided to read John Wesley, then will read Jacobas Arminius, and since he was basically a branch off of John Calvin teaching Arminianism instead of Calvin's predestination which I do not see at all in the Bible except for some badly translated verses that are not consistent with the rest of the New Covenant.
I'll be reading more of John Calvin as well because the small amount that I have read isn't enough.
I find myself not in alignment with any of the many doctrines out there so far because I'm seeing something very different in the Bible.
Some seem close, but go off in a different direction with some of their dogma.
So I just fit in where people are following the Bible the closest. At this point that is Wesley Arminianism.

Yeah full title is Wesleyan Armenian.

Some time back I recommended you find "The Holy Way" by Dale Yocum and read that. Were you able to locate a copy? I think you would enjoy it.

 

[historian]

I probably wouldn't have gotten curiosity enough to respond if not for the word "full" since full, to me at least, would mean the term inerrancy has clearly defined boundaries if one can be in full disagreement.

There are varying definitions of inerrancy though, so curious what yours is?

When people say, "We believe the Bible," but have women pastors, they don't believe the Bible.

Now, as to a literal, six-day creation is not inerrant as other aspects come into play. But when the Bible is completely clear on an issue, but the church hand waves it away, I don't fully go with it.

I'm still torn on head coverings for women...

 

[DadSmith]

Yeah full title is Wesleyan Armenian.

Some time back I recommended you find "The Holy Way" by Dale Yocum and read that. Were you able to locate a copy? I think you would enjoy it.

I have a friend that said they were going to send me a copy. I'm still waiting on it

 

[dmarsh8]

Are you saying the circle dance is applied to the persons of the Trinity or to us as we participate in the life of the Trinity through our deification?

I'm no expert scholar, but They have always been and have always been in it.(Face to face) I believe we have the opportunity to join it as well thus, ideally we should constantly become more like Christ as we surrender to the Lordship of the Spirit because He will continually reveal the nature of Christ to us.

Just curious, literally no other reason but by "deification" would "theosis" to you be a similar idea/term that you're referring to? In other words, becoming light as He is light- image bearers. People that actually cause change in the earth for good as Yeshua did and told us to do and to be. Greater works.

I like this for instance and this is why I never only read 1 single translation.
In 2 Cor. 3: "where the Spirit is Lord, there is liberty" makes much more sense than, "where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.

Simply accepting He (the Spirit) exists or recognizing Him doesn't mean He is actually Lord to someone or that they are led by the impulses of the Spirit.
Similarly a person can believe who Christ was/is, but not make him Lord.
As Paul told Timothy, they'll be ever-learning but never come to the knowledge of the truth and they will have a FORM of godliness but deny the power.

Better to know Him as an ultra-personal being, not just an impersonal-force that randomly does or doesn't do things for people. I think we were intended to live in much closer fellowship with the Triune God than we do. For many reasons, but most importantly to introduce a creation (His creation) to the love of Abba. Not the Western version Christianity, that and Sonship are not the same.
He IS love, not just someone who can love and I think that's where we should be headed because of the Spirit's operation in our lives, from our yielding to Him, not our own discipline or effort.

 

[dmarsh8]

I've decided to read John Wesley, then will read Jacobas Arminius, and since he was basically a branch off of John Calvin teaching Arminianism instead of Calvin's predestination which I do not see at all in the Bible except for some badly translated verses that are not consistent with the rest of the New Covenant.
I'll be reading more of John Calvin as well because the small amount that I have read isn't enough.
I find myself not in alignment with any of the many doctrines out there so far because I'm seeing something very different in the Bible.
Some seem close, but go off in a different direction with some of their dogma.
So I just fit in where people are following the Bible the closest. At this point that is Wesley Arminianism.

Was Calvin simply a lawyer that got into theology, not a born-again believer? That would maybe explain his legalistic, courtroom-lens theology if so. As opposed to one based on relationship.

 

[foszoe]

I'm no expert scholar, but They have always been and have always been in it.(Face to face) I believe we have the opportunity to join it as well thus, ideally we should constantly become more like Christ as we surrender to the Lordship of the Spirit because He will continually reveal the nature of Christ to us.

Just curious, literally no other reason but by "deification" would "theosis" to you be a similar idea/term that you're referring to? In other words, becoming light as He is light- image bearers. People that actually cause change in the earth for good as Yeshua did and told us to do and to be. Greater works.

I have no formal theological training, I had a history, philosophy, and religious minor. So no scholar here either. I mostly just read different things than others around me.

Deification and Theosis get used interchangeably, even by Orthodox Christians, which are the only body of Christians that use the terms in their soteriology extensively that I am aware of. I believe in the 20th century some western scholars/theologians have shown renewed interest in the 2 terms, but it has mostly seemed to be from an academic point of view as an attempt to reconcile east and western views.

I would say they are related, but different. Deification is the goal while Theosis is the method, way, path to the goal.

I will say again I am no scholar so I could absolutely be wrong in what I am about to say.

In the 4th century, Gregory of Nazianzus used the term, perichoresis(πειχώρησις), when discussing the the divine and human natures of Christ or Christology. In the 7th, Maximos the Confessor did the same. John of Damascus in the 8th applied it to the Trinity. As far as I know he was the first Christian writer to do so. Again by know I am not saying he is only thats the boundary of what I have read.

After you used the term, I did do some googling to see if there was a rediscovery of the term and see it appears to be making a comeback.

In general, I gave up trying to keep up with western theological trends, other then when they are laid out in front of me

So anyway, welcome to our little discussions

Great stuff.

 

[foszoe]

I have a friend that said they were going to send me a copy. I'm still waiting on it

Partakers of the DIvine Nature: Theosis and Christian Perfection

The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis, or deification, is one that is alien to Christianity in the west, and to many observers may seem heretical at first glance. The closest western doctrine t…

aniceplace.wordpress.com

I often express my admiration for Wesley. Since the topics of deification and theosis came up and you are interested in Wesley, I thought you might enjoy the above article.

 

[DragonGunner]

Christianity/Salvation is such a weird thing.

Feels like there’s either way more people saved then we all think, or way fewer.

Even weirder than that from past times. People you think are Christians ain’t making it, and ones that don’t look like they are going to make it actually are. The strong can be weak and those that are weak are actually strong.

 

[dmarsh8]

I have no formal theological training, I had a history, philosophy, and religious minor. So no scholar here either. I mostly just read different things than others around me.

Deification and Theosis get used interchangeably, even by Orthodox Christians, which are the only body of Christians that use the terms in their soteriology extensively that I am aware of. I believe in the 20th century some western scholars/theologians have shown renewed interest in the 2 terms, but it has mostly seemed to be from an academic point of view as an attempt to reconcile east and western views.

I would say they are related, but different. Deification is the goal while Theosis is the method, way, path to the goal.

I will say again I am no scholar so I could absolutely be wrong in what I am about to say.

In the 4th century, Gregory of Nazianzus used the term, perichoresis(πειχώρησις), when discussing the the divine and human natures of Christ or Christology. In the 7th, Maximos the Confessor did the same. John of Damascus in the 8th applied it to the Trinity. As far as I know he was the first Christian writer to do so. Again by know I am not saying he is only thats the boundary of what I have read.

After you used the term, I did do some googling to see if there was a rediscovery of the term and see it appears to be making a comeback.

In general, I gave up trying to keep up with western theological trends, other then when they are laid out in front of me

So anyway, welcome to our little discussions

Great stuff.

I've heard of Gregory and I just started reading"On The Incarnation" by Athanasius which I think will be interesting.

 

[foszoe]

I've heard of Gregory and I just started reading"On The Incarnation" by Athanasius which I think will be interesting.

On the Incarnation is a foundational book for historical Christianity and its fights with Arianism. Every Christian should read that one.

It's a fine discussion about an iota homoousios (ηομοουσιος) and homoiousios (ηομοιουσιος).

A single iota defined orthodox christianity from heresy.

Just as in perichoresis, the long or short o can make a difference in meaning.

Basil and the 2 Gregorys' are the Cappadocian fathers.

He is more popularly known in eastern Christianity as Gregory the Theologian. One of only 3 to get that title.

 

[DadSmith]

Partakers of the DIvine Nature: Theosis and Christian Perfection

The Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis, or deification, is one that is alien to Christianity in the west, and to many observers may seem heretical at first glance. The closest western doctrine t…

aniceplace.wordpress.com

I often express my admiration for Wesley. Since the topics of deification and theosis came up and you are interested in Wesley, I thought you might enjoy the above article.

I'm down to here " Christian Perfection shares many of the proof texts used to defend theosis. "

Will read the rest later on today.
I find that article interesting.

 

[foszoe]

Christianity/Salvation is such a weird thing.

Feels like there’s either way more people saved then we all think, or way fewer.

Even weirder than that from past times. People you think are Christians ain’t making it, and ones that don’t look like they are going to make it actually are. The strong can be weak and those that are weak are actually strong.

A good start on the path to salvation would be to think in the following manner and avoid all judgement of how many or who will be saved.

‘All will be saved, and I alone will be condemned’ If we follow in the footsteps of Paul, we name ourselves the chief of sinners.

Then perhaps the focus will be on begging our Lord for forgiveness and paying no mind to the sins of others.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

A good start on the path to salvation would be to think in the following manner and avoid all judgement of how many or who will be saved.

‘All will be saved, and I alone will be condemned’ If we follow in the footsteps of Paul, we name ourselves the chief of sinners.

Then perhaps the focus will be on begging our Lord for forgiveness and paying no mind to the sins of others.

Not to be too snarky, but isn’t that kinda the whole point of living like Christ?

Love the lost and spread the gospel.

I don’t care at all about the sins of others. I care deeply in what the condition their souls will spend eternity.

 

[foszoe]

Not to be too snarky, but isn’t that kinda the whole point of living like Christ?

Love the lost and spread the gospel.

I don’t care at all about the sins of others. I care deeply in what the condition their souls will spend eternity.

Love everyone and preach the gospel at all times, using words when necessary.

The posts I replied to spoke of not of loving everyone or caring deeply about their eternal destination, as you do in this post. They spoke of making a judgment regarding the eternal state of others and being wrong. That is a trap the enemy sets for us and I have put my foot in it many times.

When we focus on ourselves, Christ will spread the word through us and we won't even realize it.

Caring about the eternal state of others is a good thing. But focusing our efforts on becoming more Christ like now will have more effect on their eternal state than focusing our efforts on changing them. Ultimately if make no judgment of others at all and then we will never be right or wrong about who is saved and who isn't. If we can do that then Christ himself said we will escape judgment. I am not there so I will simply pray Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God have mercy on me, a sinner.

 

[DragonGunner]

A good start on the path to salvation would be to think in the following manner and avoid all judgement of how many or who will be saved.

‘All will be saved, and I alone will be condemned’ If we follow in the footsteps of Paul, we name ourselves the chief of sinners.

Then perhaps the focus will be on begging our Lord for forgiveness and paying no mind to the sins of others.

Ya you missed it by a mile. And I knew someone would. By saying not to judge others you judged others by comments. What you said isn’t wrong, it’s just wrong in the context of judging how others are judging.

“Hey Paul stop judging that man in church sleeping with his step mom. Just love and preach the gospel and don’t worry about sin in the church, why can’t you just love? Besides that guy is probably saved already, just worry about your own sins Paul.”

If you think everyone in church is saved or everyone saying they are a Christian is saved your wrong. Hate to tell you this but there are wolves in sheep’s clothing. And not all that say Lord, Lord will be saved. If your yet to see that don’t judge me because of what I have.

I’m done here.

 

[foszoe]

Ya you missed it by a mile. And I knew someone would. By saying not to judge others you judged others by comments. What you said isn’t wrong, it’s just wrong in the context of judging how others are judging.

“Hey Paul stop judging that man in church sleeping with his step mom. Just love and preach the gospel and don’t worry about sin in the church, why can’t you just love? Besides that guy is probably saved already, just worry about your own sins Paul.”

If you think everyone in church is saved or everyone saying they are a Christian is saved your wrong. Hate to tell you this but there are wolves in sheep’s clothing. And not all that say Lord, Lord will be saved. If your yet to see that don’t judge me because of what I have.

I’m done here.

I was simply saying if we don't judge then it is impossible to be wrong about there being way fewer or way more people being saved or to assume some are making it when they aren't or that some aren't making it when they are. Both comments I replied to were talking about the final judgement or could be reasonably assumed to be since one said "saved" and one referred to "making it" or not. I took neither comment to be a personal judgement but a general statement.

There are certainly those who have the mantle of leadership within the church and are to provide spiritual direction to members of the flock. I don't envy their responsibility at all and I am certainly not one of them.

I am simply saying Jesus is the judge of the sheep and the goats and I certainly don't want that responsibility either.

 

[JettaKnight]

Not to be too snarky, but isn’t that kinda the whole point of living like Christ?

Love the lost and spread the gospel.

I don’t care at all about the sins of others. I care deeply in what the condition their souls will spend eternity.

PREACH!

So many of my ilk are more interested in condemning others than looking at their own souls.


Do we want to love and save our "enemies" or prove we're better than than them?