Is It True?

[Palerider]

The irony is that I used a verse that I was sick of in one of my own posts.

I'm not going to bicker on a forum.

I am not bickering......just trying to understand you and what you are saying..... :)

[prisonchaplain]

So back to my original question. Can I accept what the bible says but reject the creeds?

Answer: If the creeds are accurate explications of the Bible, and you reject them, then you'd be wrong. If they do not correctly explain Scripture, then you'd be right, and those who accept them would be wrong.

The bottom-line inquiry: How crucial is it to be right on this matter? How dangerous is it to be wrong?

<div class='quotemain'>

Hello Snow,

You appear to have strong beliefs about the creeds. Will you help me understand what parts you see as confusing and filled with contradiction?

Thanks,

Dr. T

See post #42.

Snow, you don't like literary paradox much, do you? Most non-LDS Christians accept many of the notions of the creeds, without actually studying them. Even clergy like myself, unless from a mainline tradition, do not spend a great deal of time analyzing them. But, just looking at the quote you pasted, I see some intriguing paradoxes that seem quite intentional. It's almost like one of my own favorite sayings, "My God is creator of heaven and earth, and lover of my soul." Wait, is He the big Creator, or the humble creature who loves an individual human? The answer, of course, is yes. Likewise, the creedal portion you quoted seemed to have a lot of apparent contrasts that are all true. The kind of stuff that makes you stop and say, "Hmmm?" (picture Arsenio Hall, hand cupped to side of face).

[Snow]

Hello Snow,

Sorry; I read post #42 and did not recognize it as the Nicene Creed-thus my confusion. I didn't see a reference for what you posted there. What you posted seems something to do with the concept of the trinity in general.

Thanks,

Dr. T

That's from the Athanasian Creed. The Nicene Creed is more understandable.

[Snow]

snow--so you think you can be like that as you discribe yourself and no one is harmed? You think you can be like that--as you describe yourself---and there be no consequences?

Sheeze Roman, would ya learn how to use the quotes already?

Is anyone harmed by me? No. I don't post with children. Everyone I post with is an adult. The only power I have over anyone is the power they willingly grant to me of their own volition. I can't make anybody feel wrong or feel stupid unless they voluntarily give power and credence to what I write. Likewise, no one here has any responsibility for what I think and feel. I am responsible for myself only.

However, if you feel hurt because I have been credible and powerful enough that you believe what I write about you and your thoughts and behaviors - in your case and in the case of people like you, you get what you deserve. You'll notice that I don't much pick on people that have good intentions. I may be a tab abrupt and a little pushy if something annoys me, but I reserve the big guns for folks that are trying to demean and marginalize the LDS faith. I don't reserve my ire for just that however. I am now posting on another board that is unfairly attacking Islam so I jump in and take a stand for non-bigotry.

You think you can claim not to be dishonest--when I could say different. But in reality who cares what you persceve as what the truth of the matter is------the truth is your style. Hardly even addressing the topic and going after the poster---avoiding all contact with the subject matter.

I use hyperbole when I say such things as lots of folks are still laughing at your proof of the ressurection but I think we all understand that is not so much a matter fact but rather of insult or challenge and boasting. You act like I am trying to deliberately decieve. I don't think you have ever caught me in a matter of factual deception - because I don't do that. I do believe I have caught you in a deception of truth, not boasting or insult or hyperbole.

To say that I avoid the subject matter is very wide of the mark. Over the last four years I have addressed as much if not more substantive subject matter as any other poster here. However, I am not bashful about lumping the person in with the subject matter. Like your resurrection proof... the subject matter is irrelevant because it was neither evidence or proof. It would be like me trying to prove that the Book of Mormon were real by referring to the text and saying, look it must be true or else it wouldn't say so (Like you saying the Red Sea must have been a real deep sea or else the pharohs men wouldn't have drowned). It's called circular resaoning. Anyway, the interesting item from your posting was that your reasoning was so goofy, since your promised proof wasn't forthcoming.

Well you know where I stand. The resecc bell rang 20 years ago and I left the first grade play ground----as you don't hear what is being said to you

You've said that sort of thing a couple times now. Each time I have to correct you. I know exactly what people think of me. I just don't much care what some of them think - not to say that I don't care about all , just some.

I remember you being banned in past time for your hatefull posting-----well nuff said

NO Roman, you don't remember that because it never happened. I have been banned exactly twice. One time was for a few hours because I argued with the administrator/moderator so much when he made Bat a moderator. He told me to stop questioning him or else he would suspend me, which he did. I was back posting within hours with his blessing. The second time I was banned was because on another board that Marsha ran, I found bat's password and then read his PMs and found that Marsha had made him a Moderator under a secret name. Marsha was understandably (but incorrectly) under the impression that I got his password through hacking into her board and so banned me from that board and from this board also.

Neither banning was for hateful posing.

[Snow]

Originally posted by prisonchaplain

Answer: If the creeds are accurate explications of the Bible, and you reject them, then you'd be wrong. If they do not correctly explain Scripture, then you'd be right, and those who accept them would be wrong.

The bottom-line inquiry: How crucial is it to be right on this matter? How dangerous is it to be wrong?

Well, from the Evangelical position it's SHOULDN'T matter if one is right or wrong since salvation is by grace/faith, not doctrinal correctness.

But - I think their wrong. If the LDS faith is correct, I'm good to go. If the Evangelical position is correct, I'm good to go.

Snow, you don't like literary paradox much, do you? Most non-LDS Christians accept many of the notions of the creeds, without actually studying them. Even clergy like myself, unless from a mainline tradition, do not spend a great deal of time analyzing them. But, just looking at the quote you pasted, I see some intriguing paradoxes that seem quite intentional. It's almost like one of my own favorite sayings, "My God is creator of heaven and earth, and lover of my soul." Wait, is He the big Creator, or the humble creature who loves an individual human? The answer, of course, is yes. Likewise, the creedal portion you quoted seemed to have a lot of apparent contrasts that are all true. The kind of stuff that makes you stop and say, "Hmmm?" (picture Arsenio Hall, hand cupped to side of face).

The contradictions are an indicator to me that the authors didn't know what they were talking about and so tried to make the whole thing sound mysterious. They should have left it at "Incomprehensible." However, my real disagreement is that the creeds say that God is ontolgically one entity. I think that God is one but deny that the creeds correctly understand HOW God is one. Funny how they say that God is incomprehensible but then act as if they comprehend Him.

But, on another topic, whatever you believe about God's nature and salvation (grace/faith or faith/grace/works) - I could spend an hour and write a more clear treatment of both than is found in the bible - as could you. What isn't the Bible as clear?

[prisonchaplain]

Well, from the Evangelical position it's SHOULDN'T matter if one is right or wrong since salvation is by grace/faith, not doctrinal correctness.

But - I think their wrong. If the LDS faith is correct, I'm good to go. If the Evangelical position is correct, I'm good to go.

Assuming you're correct (about grace in the midst of wrong belief being good enough for salvation), you'd still rather be right, wouldn't you? At some point believers want to move from the milk to the meat. Our love for God drives us to want to understand him accurately and deeply. So, yes, it still matters.

As an added wrench in the monkey works, I recently discovered that John labels a false teaching as an antichrist. His particular struggle was with some theologians have labeled "Docetism"--the belief that Jesus suffered only apparently, not actually. The heretics were so intent on emphasizing the deity of Jesus, that they denied his true humanity. John says:

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. 1 John 4:2-3, NIV

So, apparently there ARE some false teachings/beliefs that are so heterodox that proponents are declared to have the spirit of antichrist. Can those with such a spirit be considered "saved?" Perhaps they fall in with the 'sons of perdition?'

I'm still murky on this whole thing of how wrong someone can be about Jesus/God and still be saved--since it's by grace. Were the Branch Davidians saved?

The contradictions are an indicator to me that the authors didn't know what they were talking about and so tried to make the whole thing sound mysterious.

Me thinks they were using paradox. Those who embrace the creeds will find them poignant, those who reject them might argue they are psuedo-sophisiticated.

However, my real disagreement is that the creeds say that God is ontolgically one entity. I think that God is one but deny that the creeds correctly understand HOW God is one. Funny how they say that God is incomprehensible but then act as if they comprehend Him.

It's one thing to say we cannot fully comprehend God (otherwise, we'd be his =, the argument goes), and quite another to say we can have no understanding of his nature.

You are of course right that the crux of the divide between the LDS and the rest of Christianity on our understanding of the nature of God and Jesus is this matter of Christ's ontological unity with the Father and Spirit. Either we unrestored folk are bound by Greek philosophical corruptions, or you LDS folk at least verge on full-blown polytheism.

But, on another topic, whatever you believe about God's nature and salvation (grace/faith or faith/grace/works) - I could spend an hour and write a more clear treatment of both than is found in the bible - as could you. What isn't the Bible as clear?

Short answer: Don't know. Slightly longer answer: Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 1 Corinthians 13:12

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Well, from the Evangelical position it's SHOULDN'T matter if one is right or wrong since salvation is by grace/faith, not doctrinal correctness.

But - I think their wrong. If the LDS faith is correct, I'm good to go. If the Evangelical position is correct, I'm good to go.

Assuming you're correct (about grace in the midst of wrong belief being good enough for salvation), you'd still rather be right, wouldn't you? At some point believers want to move from the milk to the meat. Our love for God drives us to want to understand him accurately and deeply. So, yes, it still matters.

As an added wrench in the monkey works, I recently discovered that John labels a false teaching as an antichrist. His particular struggle was with some theologians have labeled "Docetism"--the belief that Jesus suffered only apparently, not actually. The heretics were so intent on emphasizing the deity of Jesus, that they denied his true humanity. John says:

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. 1 John 4:2-3, NIV

So, apparently there ARE some false teachings/beliefs that are so heterodox that proponents are declared to have the spirit of antichrist. Can those with such a spirit be considered "saved?" Perhaps they fall in with the 'sons of perdition?'

I'm still murky on this whole thing of how wrong someone can be about Jesus/God and still be saved--since it's by grace. Were the Branch Davidians saved?

First, I think that I am right and you are wrong so I'm not worried.

Second: if you are right in your supposition, what specific beliefs about God are necessary in order to gain salvation?

[prisonchaplain]

First, I think that I am right and you are wrong so I'm not worried. Second: if you are right in your supposition, what specific beliefs about God are necessary in order to gain salvation?

For starters, you should probably realize that I am right and you are wrong.

On a more serious note, and with this proposal, I'm speaking out of my Armenian understanding:

1 Conversion is certainly attainable with the simple recognition that Jesus gives salvation, and that we need it. The ABC formula is accurate. Consider the thief on the cross. The first one curses Jesus, and mockingly tells him to save himself and them. The second thief, though, tells the first to shut up, and then declares his own guilt, and asks Jesus to remember him. Jesus responds, promising him a place in paradise.

The thief ADMITED he was a sinner, BELIEVED Jesus was the Way, and CONFESSED his sins. So, the gift was his.

2. Salvation can be lost. One way to lose it is apostasy--forsaking the simple and true way of Jesus for something else. For one who has known Jesus and the Spirit of God to turn towards false teachings suggests a rejection of the Spirit's wooing, drawing, convicting. In essence, to do so might well be considered blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (the unpardonable sin).

3. So, what type of teaching would be so heterodox as to be apostasy? John clearly considered Docetism a qualifier. Most Christian denominations are very cautious about declaring with certainty such teachings. Instead, they issue Statements of Faith, or creeds, and say, "This is what unites us a community of faith. These are the teachings we consider basic." My own movement has a secondary response to questionable teachings--it issues position papers. As an example, I cited one for Dr. T, who asked about the Word of Faith movement. My Church has not declared it apostasy, but does have substantial concerns.

Snow, if nothing else, you are helping me to clarify my own beliefs.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

First, I think that I am right and you are wrong so I'm not worried. Second: if you are right in your supposition, what specific beliefs about God are necessary in order to gain salvation?

For starters, you should probably realize that I am right and you are wrong.

On a more serious note, and with this proposal, I'm speaking out of my Armenian understanding:

1 Conversion is certainly attainable with the simple recognition that Jesus gives salvation, and that we need it. The ABC formula is accurate. Consider the thief on the cross. The first one curses Jesus, and mockingly tells him to save himself and them. The second thief, though, tells the first to shut up, and then declares his own guilt, and asks Jesus to remember him. Jesus responds, promising him a place in paradise.

The thief ADMITED he was a sinner, BELIEVED Jesus was the Way, and CONFESSED his sins. So, the gift was his.

You are assuming that Christ was promising salvation to the thief. I don't think that is clear. Later, after the resurrection, Christ said that he had not yet accended to heaven. So, where ever the thief went that day, it wasn't heaven.

2. Salvation can be lost. One way to lose it is apostasy--forsaking the simple and true way of Jesus for something else. For one who has known Jesus and the Spirit of God to turn towards false teachings suggests a rejection of the Spirit's wooing, drawing, convicting. In essence, to do so might well be considered blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (the unpardonable sin).

That's another example of how fractured Christianity is. Other Christians disagree.

3. So, what type of teaching would be so heterodox as to be apostasy? John clearly considered Docetism a qualifier. Most Christian denominations are very cautious about declaring with certainty such teachings. Instead, they issue Statements of Faith, or creeds, and say, "This is what unites us a community of faith. These are the teachings we consider basic." My own movement has a secondary response to questionable teachings--it issues position papers. As an example, I cited one for Dr. T, who asked about the Word of Faith movement. My Church has not declared it apostasy, but does have substantial concerns.

Snow, if nothing else, you are helping me to clarify my own beliefs.

Well okay but if you ever figure out what beliefs are essential to or antithetical to salvation, let me know.

[prisonchaplain]

You are assuming that Christ was promising salvation to the thief. I don't think that is clear. Later, after the resurrection, Christ said that he had not yet accended to heaven. So, where ever the thief went that day, it wasn't heaven.

Suffice to say I am indeed assuming that Christ offered the thief salvation. While the thief might not have gone to heaven that day, I'm convinced that those who were in what Jesus called paradise will end up in heaven.

Prisonchaplain says: Salvation can be lost. One way to lose it is apostasy--forsaking the simple and true way of Jesus for something else. Snow responds: That's another example of how fractured Christianity is. Other Christians disagree.

We still see through that glass dimly...however, what you call "fractured" I'd call a disagreement. The LDS faith may have a unified organization, but if I took the top 12 LDS posters at this sight and analyzed their beliefs and opinions, me thinks I'd find incredible--well, what should I call it, disagreement or fracture? B)

Well okay but if you ever figure out what beliefs are essential to or antithetical to salvation, let me know.

The kernel from the husk? Sounds easier than it is, that's for sure.

[Maureen]

We still see through that glass dimly...however, what you call "fractured" I'd call a disagreement. The LDS faith may have a unified organization, but if I took the top 12 LDS posters at this sight and analyzed their beliefs and opinions, me thinks I'd find incredible--well, what should I call it, disagreement or fracture? B)

All you'd have to do is look at Snow and Ray and you've got disagreement and fracture.

M.