-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Us orthodox Christian believe salvation comes only through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is salvation in no one else (Acts 4: 1-12).
But the question of who can be saved is different from related questions of where we can find truth in non-Jewish non-Christian cultures in antiquity, to what degree can we find it in those cultures, and when we do find it where did that truth come from.
To restrict truth to culture and science and other areas is to use a modern definition of "religion" which the biblical authors would not recognize. They did not distinguish religion from life. There were no neutral domains in which the one true God did not exist for ancient Jews and Christians.
Even modern conservative Christians, like myself, who think religion can be separated from culture; reject the false assertions of religious relativism and religious plurality; and acknowledge the existence influence of both God and the devil on world cultures and world religions concede that many things in culture are rooted in religion or have a religious dimension.
Combine that with cultural and religious truth and error existing simultaneously in antiquity and that leads to a problem of sorts which can be framed in a question. If God is the author of truth, no matter where it is found, must all truth either directly or indirectly come from God?
But the question of who can be saved is different from related questions of where we can find truth in non-Jewish non-Christian cultures in antiquity, to what degree can we find it in those cultures, and when we do find it where did that truth come from.
To restrict truth to culture and science and other areas is to use a modern definition of "religion" which the biblical authors would not recognize. They did not distinguish religion from life. There were no neutral domains in which the one true God did not exist for ancient Jews and Christians.
Even modern conservative Christians, like myself, who think religion can be separated from culture; reject the false assertions of religious relativism and religious plurality; and acknowledge the existence influence of both God and the devil on world cultures and world religions concede that many things in culture are rooted in religion or have a religious dimension.
Combine that with cultural and religious truth and error existing simultaneously in antiquity and that leads to a problem of sorts which can be framed in a question. If God is the author of truth, no matter where it is found, must all truth either directly or indirectly come from God?
I don't think there are promises of salvation apart from the Gospel or at least a promise from God...
Romans 10:13-15, 17 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Romans 10:13-15, 17 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
C
It is not that people are merely questioning the doctrine of that highlighted statement, it is more that most people are convinced that Jesus is scripturally the only way to salvation and they see ideas being said that it is a contrite heart which saves and not faith in the Christ.
I believe P_rehbein broiled it down to what most people accept: whosoever believes in the Son (John 3:16).
I believe Scripture also basically says, 'how can they believe (in the Son) if they have not heard. How can they hear if a messenger does not go to them'. But, deducting from what you say concerning the sun worshipers, a person does not need faith in the Son as long as he is contrite.
I believe there should be some sort of correct doctrine concerning the Son. Otherwise, we could all be Davidicans or followers of Jimmy Jones. Wouldn't you agree?
But, then again, you do bring up an interesting thought, what becomes of those who have never heard of the Gospel and given that change to accept it? As for me, I believe that Acts 11 explains quite a bit as to understanding how God SEES TO IT that those who are seeking to be righteous before Him are given that opportunity to accept the Gospel He offers of His Son.
I believe P_rehbein broiled it down to what most people accept: whosoever believes in the Son (John 3:16).
I believe Scripture also basically says, 'how can they believe (in the Son) if they have not heard. How can they hear if a messenger does not go to them'. But, deducting from what you say concerning the sun worshipers, a person does not need faith in the Son as long as he is contrite.
I believe there should be some sort of correct doctrine concerning the Son. Otherwise, we could all be Davidicans or followers of Jimmy Jones. Wouldn't you agree?
But, then again, you do bring up an interesting thought, what becomes of those who have never heard of the Gospel and given that change to accept it? As for me, I believe that Acts 11 explains quite a bit as to understanding how God SEES TO IT that those who are seeking to be righteous before Him are given that opportunity to accept the Gospel He offers of His Son.
Basically, doctrine is a man's interpretation of scripture and we all see darkly as through a glass. No man has complete understanding. We are to listen to each other to compare it with scripture, but scripture is to be our guide not some man's idea of what scripture says. So, to some extent, we all have some false doctrine.
God sees our heart, God sees if we are looking to man's interpretation or directly to Him. We are to look to God for truth.
God sees our heart, God sees if we are looking to man's interpretation or directly to Him. We are to look to God for truth.
A
Some perspective:
DOCTRINE. A theological formulation that attempts to provide a summary statement of the teaching of Scripture on a particular theological topic. Ideally, doctrine is formed by attempting to be faithful to Scripture while giving attention to the traditions of the church and the thought patterns of the day. Thus doctrine is stated in such a way that contemporary people can understand the teaching of the ancient Scriptures.
Grenz, S., Guretzki, D., & Nordling, C. F. (1999). Pocket dictionary of theological terms (40). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
DOCTRINE. In the Old Testament the word occurs chiefly as a translation of leqaḥ, meaning ‘what is received’ (Dt. 32:2; Jb. 11:4; Pr. 4:2; Is. 29:24). The idea of a body of revealed teaching is chiefly expressed by tôrâ, which occurs 216 times and is rendered as ‘law’.
In the New Testament two words are used. didaskalia means both the act and the content of teaching. It is used of the Pharisees’ teaching (Mt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7). Apart from one instance in Colossians and one in Ephesians, it is otherwise confined to the Pastoral Epistles (and seems to refer often to some body of teaching used as a standard of orthodoxy).
didachē is used in more parts of the New Testament. It too can mean either the act or the content of teaching. It occurs of the teaching of Jesus (Mt. 7:28, etc.) which he claimed to be divine (Jn. 7:16–17). After Pentecost Christian doctrine began to be formulated (Acts 2:42) as the instruction given to those who had responded to the kērygma (Rom. 6:17). There were some in the church whose official function was to teach this to new converts (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:28–29). For the content of the didachē, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St Peter, 1946, Essay II.
Nixon, R. E. (1996). Doctrine. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (280). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states:
"The word doctrine comes from the Latin doctrina, the Vulgate translation for didaskalàa and didacø. It means teaching or instruction and is closely associated with the words CATECHESIS and KERYGMA. It is used both in the active sense of the imparting of knowledge and in the passive sense of what is taught.
Concerning the system of Christian doctrine, early summaries and creeds soon coalesced into the present form of the creed, where there is expressed: first, belief in God the Father of all; then belief in Christ the Redeemer, involving an account of salvation history especially as seen in the mysteries of His Passion, death, Resurrection, and Ascension; and finally, belief in the Holy Spirit and His work of sanctification in the Church, which will continue until the end of the world."
DOCTRINE. A theological formulation that attempts to provide a summary statement of the teaching of Scripture on a particular theological topic. Ideally, doctrine is formed by attempting to be faithful to Scripture while giving attention to the traditions of the church and the thought patterns of the day. Thus doctrine is stated in such a way that contemporary people can understand the teaching of the ancient Scriptures.
Grenz, S., Guretzki, D., & Nordling, C. F. (1999). Pocket dictionary of theological terms (40). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
DOCTRINE. In the Old Testament the word occurs chiefly as a translation of leqaḥ, meaning ‘what is received’ (Dt. 32:2; Jb. 11:4; Pr. 4:2; Is. 29:24). The idea of a body of revealed teaching is chiefly expressed by tôrâ, which occurs 216 times and is rendered as ‘law’.
In the New Testament two words are used. didaskalia means both the act and the content of teaching. It is used of the Pharisees’ teaching (Mt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7). Apart from one instance in Colossians and one in Ephesians, it is otherwise confined to the Pastoral Epistles (and seems to refer often to some body of teaching used as a standard of orthodoxy).
didachē is used in more parts of the New Testament. It too can mean either the act or the content of teaching. It occurs of the teaching of Jesus (Mt. 7:28, etc.) which he claimed to be divine (Jn. 7:16–17). After Pentecost Christian doctrine began to be formulated (Acts 2:42) as the instruction given to those who had responded to the kērygma (Rom. 6:17). There were some in the church whose official function was to teach this to new converts (e.g. 1 Cor. 12:28–29). For the content of the didachē, see E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St Peter, 1946, Essay II.
Nixon, R. E. (1996). Doctrine. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (280). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia states:
"The word doctrine comes from the Latin doctrina, the Vulgate translation for didaskalàa and didacø. It means teaching or instruction and is closely associated with the words CATECHESIS and KERYGMA. It is used both in the active sense of the imparting of knowledge and in the passive sense of what is taught.
Concerning the system of Christian doctrine, early summaries and creeds soon coalesced into the present form of the creed, where there is expressed: first, belief in God the Father of all; then belief in Christ the Redeemer, involving an account of salvation history especially as seen in the mysteries of His Passion, death, Resurrection, and Ascension; and finally, belief in the Holy Spirit and His work of sanctification in the Church, which will continue until the end of the world."
A
"This is fantastic! I'm so thrilled to hear you say that! There is a wideness in God's mercy" responded Robert Schuler
I'm sure Robert was ecstatic as he ran a mega church for decades and may not have actually led a single person in a genuine sinner's prayer of repentance.
Jesus, on the other hand, said repeatedly to "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
His parables appropriated repentance together with forgiveness such as the rebellious son leaving his father and as an unrepentant sinner finally saw his spirituality ruined in the world and then repenting and returning to his father.
Jesus described the repentant son as saying, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son" (Luke 15:21).
Schuller, on the other hand, taught: "I may not deserve it [salvation] but I am worth it so don't say that I am unworthy" (Self-Esteem, p. 74). "The most serious sin is the one that causes me to say, 'I am unworthy. I may have no claim to divine sonship if you examine me at my worst.'" "For once a person believes he is an 'unworthy sinner,' it is doubtful if he can really honestly accept the saving grace God offers in Jesus Christ." (Self-Esteem, p. 98).
While repentance may not be popular or build crystal cathedrals: Jesus and the apostles wrote in the Bible that it is necessary.
I'm sure Robert was ecstatic as he ran a mega church for decades and may not have actually led a single person in a genuine sinner's prayer of repentance.
Jesus, on the other hand, said repeatedly to "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
His parables appropriated repentance together with forgiveness such as the rebellious son leaving his father and as an unrepentant sinner finally saw his spirituality ruined in the world and then repenting and returning to his father.
Jesus described the repentant son as saying, "Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son" (Luke 15:21).
Schuller, on the other hand, taught: "I may not deserve it [salvation] but I am worth it so don't say that I am unworthy" (Self-Esteem, p. 74). "The most serious sin is the one that causes me to say, 'I am unworthy. I may have no claim to divine sonship if you examine me at my worst.'" "For once a person believes he is an 'unworthy sinner,' it is doubtful if he can really honestly accept the saving grace God offers in Jesus Christ." (Self-Esteem, p. 98).
While repentance may not be popular or build crystal cathedrals: Jesus and the apostles wrote in the Bible that it is necessary.
T
I don't think some understand what I've been trying to get at with this thread, maybe I'm not expressing myself well.
We each have a Bible, the whole counsel of God, so each of us should strive for sound doctrine. I once heard a pastor preach, "Sound doctrine leads to a sound walk." He had it backwards. You can preach sound doctrine until you're blue in the face, but still not change a single life. How do I know? I've tried. The hearer must have an open Berean heart before he can even hear truth, and that requires a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. A couple of years ago I posted a short testimony by the Chinese evangelist, Watchman Nee. . .
Back in the late 40s, Watchman Nee was holding a series of tent meetings in Outer Mongolia. At the end of one service, an old Mongolian man walked up to him and gave this testimony . . .
"When I was very young, my mother took me to a Buddhist temple to burn incense and offer sacrifices. I looked at that idol and said to myself, ‘Buddha, you are just a piece of stone and can’t do anything for me good or ill, and besides that you’re ugly, so I’m not going to worship you. Then I walked out into the courtyard, raised my hands towards the sky and said, "Oh God who made all this, I don’t know who You are or anything about You, but it is You I am going to worship all my life." Then with tears running down his face the man said, "I’ve met God twice in my life, the first time was back in that courtyard, the second time is now, when I know who He is."
So the question is this, when was the Mongolian saved? in my opinion, he was saved the first time He met God, but how much doctrine did he have? All he knew was that a rock wasn't God and he didn't come to that understanding himself, the Lord reached down and touched his heart.
On our Christian forums today, we spend countless hours debating doctrinal minutia, sometimes even angrily. Does anyone learn anything from it or does it change any lives? Good question, but with the churches falling apart around us, does doctrinal debates change the hearts of the hundreds of guests who come on these forums to find solace for the emptiness ln their lives? I don't have any answers, but I do know that doctrine (sound or otherwise) isn't it. The real question is this: How do we reach their hearts?
We each have a Bible, the whole counsel of God, so each of us should strive for sound doctrine. I once heard a pastor preach, "Sound doctrine leads to a sound walk." He had it backwards. You can preach sound doctrine until you're blue in the face, but still not change a single life. How do I know? I've tried. The hearer must have an open Berean heart before he can even hear truth, and that requires a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. A couple of years ago I posted a short testimony by the Chinese evangelist, Watchman Nee. . .
Back in the late 40s, Watchman Nee was holding a series of tent meetings in Outer Mongolia. At the end of one service, an old Mongolian man walked up to him and gave this testimony . . .
"When I was very young, my mother took me to a Buddhist temple to burn incense and offer sacrifices. I looked at that idol and said to myself, ‘Buddha, you are just a piece of stone and can’t do anything for me good or ill, and besides that you’re ugly, so I’m not going to worship you. Then I walked out into the courtyard, raised my hands towards the sky and said, "Oh God who made all this, I don’t know who You are or anything about You, but it is You I am going to worship all my life." Then with tears running down his face the man said, "I’ve met God twice in my life, the first time was back in that courtyard, the second time is now, when I know who He is."
So the question is this, when was the Mongolian saved? in my opinion, he was saved the first time He met God, but how much doctrine did he have? All he knew was that a rock wasn't God and he didn't come to that understanding himself, the Lord reached down and touched his heart.
On our Christian forums today, we spend countless hours debating doctrinal minutia, sometimes even angrily. Does anyone learn anything from it or does it change any lives? Good question, but with the churches falling apart around us, does doctrinal debates change the hearts of the hundreds of guests who come on these forums to find solace for the emptiness ln their lives? I don't have any answers, but I do know that doctrine (sound or otherwise) isn't it. The real question is this: How do we reach their hearts?
Last edited by a moderator:
Therapon, in some ways I agree with you. Especially in your last couple of posts. I personally love Watchman Nee. I do not believe that our salvation rests on which bible we read. I do however strive to "seek and find" A person who grabs the wrong bible can find themselves missing things they'll never know they missed. Also, (here comes the conspiracy) when the one world government institutes the one world religion I believe they will use everything they can to cast doubt into each of our religions ESPECIALLY the parts that claim exclusive salvation. IE through Jesus Christ alone. For Christians they would be best served showing us contradictions, questioning Gods morality and any semantics they can maneuver around to show that we have simply misinterpreted what the scriptures had said. I promise you, when that day comes it will be with a new age bible that descended from the works of Wescott and Hort.